by Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau
Posted: May 30, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Troy Michigan) Protests from conservative Christian parents over a poster in a Troy High School classroom that contained the message that "gay people are everyday people," has backfired.

Instead of forcing the school to remove the poster from the classroom other teachers have ordered copies for their rooms.

The poster had been on the wall in the English Department room for two years with no objections until earlier this month when a parent protested to the Troy School Board.

Anthony Cruz, 49, who has two daughters at the school said Troy High is supposed to concentrate on academics and leave other matters for after-school time and activities. Instead, the classroom poster has a "a captive audience," in students, Cruz said.

But Patricia Raezler, 55, a member of Parents Promoting Innocence in Bloomfield Hills, which supports Troy parents in the poster issue, said the school shouldn't be promoting sexuality of any kind.

"We are promoting innocence," said Raezler, whose children attend private school. "Once, these types of things were left up to the parents. Then there was a push to inform and let pupils know about sexuality. It hasn't decreased sexually transmitted diseases."

But, despite threats of retaliation by Cruz, 25 more posters have been ordered.

"Now there's going to be 26 at the school," Leslie Thompson, executive director of Affirmations Gay/Lesbian Community Center, which distributes the posters, told the Detroit News.

"I'm really rather proud of the district, the school and the teachers for standing by their gay students," she said. "(The poster) is really a strong message for those kids."

District spokesman Tim McAvoy confirmed that at least four new posters went up recently.
"The students requested the poster to show all people deserve respect and tolerance, and should not be harassed for any reason," McAvoy said. "The poster ensures student safety through a message of tolerance and respect."

But, Cruz isn't backing down, saying the posters promote a sexual lifestyle that is against Judeo-Christian beliefs.

"I am here to censor their attempts to promote that lifestyle on my children," he told the News. "We do not want them to try and change our children."

posted by Anthony # 7:09 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: May 31, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Ottawa) Conservative Christian groups have grabbed control of nearly a dozen Conservative Party ridings across Canada and vow they will ensure the party adheres to a strict right wing agenda including an end to same-sex marriage.

Candidates with close ties the Canadian branches of groups including Focus on the Family and other American evangelical groups have won party nominations in three provinces: Four in British Columbia, three in Nova Scotia, and one in Ontario. The groups also have succeeded in having their members win votes to become riding association presidents elsewhere in the country.

And they say that it is only the beginning.

The Globe and Mail reports that the groups are preparing to put up candidates for Conservative Party nominations in other regions as the country prepares for an election late this year or early in 2005.

Even though the Conservative Party is the only federal party to oppose same-sex marriage, the right wing groups say they want to be assured that if a bill currently before Parliament to legalize gay marriage is passed it would be repealed by the next government.
But, not all Tories are in favor of the plans by FOC and others.

"The difficulty, from a party perspective, is that it begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," Ross Haynes told the Globe and Mail. Haynes lost the Conservative nomination in the riding of Halifax to one of three "Christian, pro-family people" recommended by a minister at a religious rally this spring in Kentville, N.S.

Tristan Emmanuel, a Halifax evangelist with ties to Focus on the Family, makes not apologies.
"It's time we stopped apologizing and started defending who we are," he said. "The evangelical community in Canada, by and large, and socially conservative Catholics, are saying we have been far too heavenly minded and thus we have been of no earthly value for far too long, on too many fronts."

Darrel Reid, the Conservative Party candidate in Richmond, B.C., is a past president of Focus on the Family Canada. "The reason I entered this nomination contest is because I am really concerned about the direction our government is going," Reid told the Globe.

Rondo Thomas won the party's nomination in a suburban Toronto riding. Thomas is a top official with the Canada Christian College, which is run by Charles McVety, a senior director of the Defend Marriage Coalition.

Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado has reportedly sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to its Canadian affiliate to wage an anti-gay campaign and the Roman Catholic Knights Of Columbus in the US recently spent nearly $100,000 to print two million postcards to be distributed in Catholic churches across Canada for people to send to Members of Parliament opposing gay marriage.

The growing number of anti-gay candidates is making some moderate Conservative MPs nervous. "It's making the party look extreme and making me nervous," said one MP who asked that his name not be used.

But, the growing coziness between Christian conservative groups and the party should not be a surprise.

In April Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper addressed a rally on Parliament Hill organized by many of the groups now trying to take control of the Tories.

At the time he told the 15,000 people bussed in from across Canada that if his party is elected to govern he would would abolish the same-sex marriage law.

Harper and the Conservatives have been receiving help from the Republican Party. GOP advisers and consultants have been working with the party for more than a year.

Earlier this month moderate Conservative MP Belinda Stronach left the party and joined the Liberals. Stronach, who supports same-sex marriage said she had become disillusioned with the Tories and accused Harper of pandering to extremists.

posted by Anthony # 7:08 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 30, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow California gays and lesbians to marry is coming down to the wire. The bill must gain approval in the Assembly this week or die.

It is one of dozens of pieces of legislation that must pass by Friday, forcing lawmakers to scramble to finish their business. With a week already shortened by the Memorial Day holiday the Assembly has extended its sessions throughout the week.

The marriage bill received final committee support last week. If it survives a vote in the Assembly it would still need to pass the Senate before moving to Gov. Schwarzenegger.
Equality California, the state's largest LGBT rights organization expressed optimism Monday that the bill would pass.

“It takes hard work to maintain a strong relationship and raise a family," EQCA Executive Director Geoffrey Kors told 365Gay.com.

"This legislation makes tens of thousands of relationships stronger and provides much needed protections to stay a family. We are very hopeful legislators will take a stand this week for equality for all families.”

The legislation is called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, and was authored by openly gay Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco).

The bill would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.

A similar bill last year was pulled by Leno when it became obvious there were not enough votes to pass it. This time though, the measure has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage are vowing a fight and have called on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to come out publicly against the legislation.

So far 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 of same-sex marriage also is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal.

Meanwhile, a a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.

Last week, LGBT groups and their supporters announced a broad coalition to combat any attempt to amend the Constitution.

posted by Anthony # 7:07 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: May 31, 2005 12:01 am ET
(Ottawa) Conservative Christian groups have grabbed control of nearly a dozen Conservative Party ridings across Canada and vow they will ensure the party adheres to a strict right wing agenda including an end to same-sex marriage.

Candidates with close ties the Canadian branches of groups including Focus on the Family and other American evangelical groups have won party nominations in three provinces: Four in British Columbia, three in Nova Scotia, and one in Ontario. The groups also have succeeded in having their members win votes to become riding association presidents elsewhere in the country.

And they say that it is only the beginning.

The Globe and Mail reports that the groups are preparing to put up candidates for Conservative Party nominations in other regions as the country prepares for an election late this year or early in 2005.

Even though the Conservative Party is the only federal party to oppose same-sex marriage, the right wing groups say they want to be assured that if a bill currently before Parliament to legalize gay marriage is passed it would be repealed by the next government.

But, not all Tories are in favor of the plans by FOC and others.

"The difficulty, from a party perspective, is that it begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," Ross Haynes told the Globe and Mail. Haynes lost the Conservative nomination in the riding of Halifax to one of three "Christian, pro-family people" recommended by a minister at a religious rally this spring in Kentville, N.S.

Tristan Emmanuel, a Halifax evangelist with ties to Focus on the Family, makes not apologies.
"It's time we stopped apologizing and started defending who we are," he said. "The evangelical community in Canada, by and large, and socially conservative Catholics, are saying we have been far too heavenly minded and thus we have been of no earthly value for far too long, on too many fronts."

Darrel Reid, the Conservative Party candidate in Richmond, B.C., is a past president of Focus on the Family Canada. "The reason I entered this nomination contest is because I am really concerned about the direction our government is going," Reid told the Globe.

Rondo Thomas won the party's nomination in a suburban Toronto riding. Thomas is a top official with the Canada Christian College, which is run by Charles McVety, a senior director of the Defend Marriage Coalition.

Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado has reportedly sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to its Canadian affiliate to wage an anti-gay campaign and the Roman Catholic Knights Of Columbus in the US recently spent nearly $100,000 to print two million postcards to be distributed in Catholic churches across Canada for people to send to Members of Parliament opposing gay marriage.

The growing number of anti-gay candidates is making some moderate Conservative MPs nervous. "It's making the party look extreme and making me nervous," said one MP who asked that his name not be used.

But, the growing coziness between Christian conservative groups and the party should not be a surprise.

In April Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper addressed a rally on Parliament Hill organized by many of the groups now trying to take control of the Tories.

At the time he told the 15,000 people bussed in from across Canada that if his party is elected to govern he would would abolish the same-sex marriage law.

Harper and the Conservatives have been receiving help from the Republican Party. GOP advisers and consultants have been working with the party for more than a year.

Earlier this month moderate Conservative MP Belinda Stronach left the party and joined the Liberals. Stronach, who supports same-sex marriage said she had become disillusioned with the Tories and accused Harper of pandering to extremists.

posted by Anthony # 7:01 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: May 29, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(London) When Britain's new domestic partner law takes effect in December gay Anglican priests and their partners will be allowed to register, the Church has decided, but they cannot consummate their relationships.

The proposal has angered both gays and homophobes in the Church, but has the approval of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

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.
Under the Civil Partnerships law, same-sex couples have inheritance rights to their partners' estates, hospital visitation rights, and the right to receive the spouses share of their partner's pension.

Anglican leaders in Britain say they have no choice but to follow the law. But, to register as a couple, a gay priest in a relationship will be required to provide his bishop with an assurance he will be celibate.

Conservatives in the worldwide Anglican faith have been battling what they see as a growing permissiveness toward gays since the election of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in the US in 2003.

In February leaders of the faith told the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to withdraw from the communion's councils temporarily, and to explain their attitudes toward gays.

The proposal to allow gay clergy to register their partnerships in Britain, but refrain from sex, must still be approved by the House of Bishops, the Church's highest body in the UK, but already it has renewed the animosity between conservatives and liberals in the Church and angered gays.

One gay priest labeled the plan as "preposterous".

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, and organization of LGBT Anglicans says that within the next five years it estimates that 1,500 gay clergy will have registered under the new law.

posted by Anthony # 10:47 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 28, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) Legislation that would bar gays and lesbians from becoming adoptive parents in Texas has been dropped from a Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services bill.
The bill, with the ban, had passed the House, but a Senate version passed without the provision.

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 during debate on the legislation last month.

"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 legislation would have required 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 would have required the state to remove foster children already placed in the homes of gays or lesbians.

But, the provision ran up against tough opposition in the Senate.
A House-Senate committee, made up of five members from each chamber, that harmonized the bill so that it could be presented to each house for a final vote stripped out the anti-gay provision Friday.

"This bill was about reforming Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services, and I certainly didn't want it to get side-tracked on an entirely different issue that was volatile," said Rep. Suzanna Hupp, R-Lampasas, who headed the conference committee with Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, Senate sponsor of the legislation.

Talton refused to vote for the revised bill, vowing to bring a proposed gay ban back next year.
The new bill is expected to pass easily. It will provide for the hiring of more caseworkers, require better training and transfer duties for managing Child Protective Services foster care cases to private agencies as part of its effort to reform the troubled system.

posted by Anthony # 10:46 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 28, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Augusta, Maine) The Maine legislature is expected to debate a proposed amendment to the state constitution next week that would ban same-sex marriage.

But, if the reception the measure got in committee Friday is any indication, it will likely fail.
The Judiciary Committee split 7 - 5 along party lines with 7 of the eight Democrats voting against it and the 8th absent from the committee.

Even an attempt to "moderate" the amendment did not sway Democrats signaling its likely to be defeated in the Democratically controlled House.

The original provision would have not only banned gay marriage also block civil unions and domestic partner benefits. Under tough opposition from Democrats all but the marriage ban were removed. Even so, the measure got short shrift from Democrats.

Maine already has a so-called defense of marriage law that denies gays and lesbians the right to marry and Democrats say an amendment is not necessary.

"I have yet to see what the problem is," said Rep. Stan Gerzofsky (D-Brunswick). "I haven't had a groundswell of constituents in my town banging on my door or wearing out my e-mail on this issue."

"I understand how it might energize fundamentalist voters but I've yet to hear what public policy change will occur as a result of this bill," Rep. Sean Faircloth, D-Bangor, said after the vote.

But, Rep. Roderick Carr ( R-Lincoln) the bill's sponsor, said that "the traditional definition of marriage "establishes the foundation of our society."

Carr said that an amendment is the only way to prevent courts from one day striking down the current marriage ban.

Last year a similar measure was defeated in both houses on a largely party-line vote.

posted by Anthony # 10:46 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 28, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Minneapolis, Minnesota) A 27-year-old transsexual pastor will begin a two-year appointment as an outreach minister at Plymouth Congregational Church in Minneapolis.The Rev. Malcolm Himschoot is one of only a few openly transgendered clergy members in the U.S. But Plymouth leaders said they chose Himschoot for several other reasons."It speaks to us of the self-insight and courage that he has, but it was not the driver in our decision," said the Rev. James Gertmenian, Plymouth's senior minister. "He's got exceptional academic credentials. ... We were impressed he spent a year doing urban ministry in Denver, and he impressed us with the depth of his own spiritual vision."Plymouth, an independent Congregational church, is a liberal congregation with 1,800 members.For the past year, Himschoot, a Colorado native, has been associate pastor at Denver Inner City Parish, where he worked with students, seniors and ex-prisoners.He is getting the most attention for "Call Me Malcolm," a documentary about his bodily change from a woman to a man and about finding acceptance. The film was produced by the United Church of Christ, which ordained Himschoot.The film was well-received at recent film festivals in Los Angeles and Cleveland. It will have a two-week run at the Bell Auditorium in Minneapolis, starting June 24.Himschoot told the Star Tribune it will be interesting to see how much buzz the film gets before he moves to Minneapolis this summer. His job at Plymouth begins in August."We'll see how it goes," he said.Himschoot will move to town with his wife, Mariah Hayden.At Plymouth, Himschoot will focus on community programs. He'll work on affordable housing and at a drop-in center for the mentally ill. He also will preside at weddings, funerals, baptisms and other church events.Himschoot said he's looking forward to moving to Minneapolis and working at Plymouth, a church that he said "has a terrific history of neighborhood ministry and a progressive presence in the larger community."He said his own appointment was "a credit to the church that they looked at all applicants, including the transgendered one, equally."The Rev. Pat Conover, a transgendered UCC minister in Washington, D.C., and author of "Transgender Good News," said he wasn't surprised by Plymouth's decision."It takes some thought for a congregation to work this through, not necessarily because there's hostility. For a whole lot of people it doesn't make sense," Conover said.The United Church of Christ says it became the first mainline Christian denomination to ordain an openly transgendered minister a few years ago.Conover said he knows of four openly transgendered ministers and a few seminarians. But research and his own experience suggest congregations have been led by closeted transgendered ministers for years, he said.Conover said he wasn't open as a transgender person when he worked at a parish in the early 1980s."We did not have the word 'transgender' then," he said.Gertmenian said a number of people in the congregation have welcomed Himschoot's appointment. For others, he said, it may be harder."Realistically, we can say this is something that people will be interested in," he said. "We'll need to do some learning and adjustment. But the end of the story will be that we'll find out it doesn't matter."

posted by Anthony # 10:45 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 27, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Seattle, Washington) Microsoft announced Friday that it has severed ties with Ralph Reed, a conservative Republican lobbyist who once headed the Christian Coalition.

Reed a longtime opponent of LGBT civil rights had served as a political consultant to Microsoft.
He is is now running for lieutenant governor of Georgia. "It would not be appropriate to have a consultant on retainer that is seeking elective office at the same time," company spokeswoman Ginny Terzano said.

But, many within Microsoft and outside the company believe his departure has more to do with the massive public relations hit the computer software giant took with it was learned it had withdrawn its support for a gay civil rights bill in the Washington legislature.

The measure lost by a single vote in the Senate following Microsoft's move.

Microsoft's decision was taken after a meeting between company executives and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a Seattle evangelical minister and longtime associate of Reed.

Hutcherson allegedly threatened a national boycott of Microsoft if it did not disavow itself from the gay rights bill that would have made discrimination against members of the LGBT community illegal.

As details of the meeting emerged there was a storm of protest from Washington's gay community.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer then sent an email to employees claiming that the company had made its decision before the legislative session began that it should to narrow its focus on a shorter list of issues directly affecting the business.

But, that explanation, in light of details of the meeting between Microsoft and Hutcherson, failed to appease the company's sizable LGBT workforce or gays across the country. Even an attempt by Microsoft chair Bill Gates to quiet opposition failed.

"Next time this one comes around, we'll see," Gates told the Seattle Times on May 1. "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."

With the storm showing no sign of abating Microsoft came full circle, announcing that it would once again support LGBT civil rights

posted by Anthony # 10:44 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 27, 2005 4:30 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) Colorado Governor Bill Owens has vetoed a bill that would protect gays, lesbians and the transgendered against bias in the workplace.

The civil rights bill passed the legislature earlier this month. Similar bills were defeated in the Legislature for the past eight consecutive years.

In 1992 proposed civil rights protections were put to voters. The measure was passed but later struck down.

Republicans fought the current bill as it made its way through the legislature.

In the Senate, when it became clear they did not have the votes to defeat the legislation GOP lawmakers attempted to have protections for the transgendered removed.

House 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."
After the legislation passed, conservative groups had appealed to Owens, a Republican, to veto it.

"The legislature sent a strong message against discrimination by passing this bill, unfortunately Governor Owens sent a stronger message by vetoing it," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"This veto is out of step with voters, and businesses across Colorado who stand against prejudice."

In announcing his veto Owens said that he would, however, sign an anti-hate crime bill that includes gays and lesbians that was also passed by the legislature, even though he does not support it.

Only one governor - then California Gov. Pete Wilson - has ever vetoed a measure prohibiting sexual orientation-based discrimination. Wilson then signed a measure adding sexual orientation anti-discrimination protections to the state's Labor Code law the next year.

Sixteen states and Washington, D.C., have laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and six prohibit gender identity-based discrimination, including Colorado neighbor New Mexico.

posted by Anthony # 10:44 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 27, 2005 1:30 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court on Friday rejected a conservative bid to stop same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

In a terse five sentence written ruling the court said that no new evidence had been presented that would alter the court's landmark ruling that allowed same-sex marriage to begin in the state just over a year ago.

"Nothing has transpired in the interim that materially changes the situation or which warrants the truly extraordinary measures sought now," the court wrote.

The suit had been brought by the Catholic Action League and its leader, C. Joseph Doyle.
Friday's ruling also noted that it had previously denied a bid to halt gay marriages by the League.

The league's lawyer, Chester Darling, told the justices in oral arguments earlier this month that same-sex marriage in the state should be halted until voters have a chance to decide the issue in a referendum.

The legislature voted last year to approve an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The measure must get approval again in this session of the legislature before going to voters in 2006.

A vote by lawmakers will be held in the fall but it is uncertain if there are enough votes in the legislature to send it to the electorate.

On May 17, 2004 same-sex marriage became legal in the state. Since then about 6,200 same-sex couples have taken the plunge into matrimony.

Today's ruling was welcomed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders which won Goodridge, the original marriage case, at the Supreme Judicial Court.

“The court has affirmed our view that no harm has befallen anyone in the Commonwealth as the result of same-sex couples marrying in the state," said GLAD attorney Michele Granda. " Goodridge is the law of the Commonwealth, and nothing has happened to change that. Same-sex couples can continue going about their business and accessing all of the benefits, protections, and rights of marriage.”

posted by Anthony # 10:43 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: May 27, 2005 11:00 am ET
(London) Gay rocker Elton John and filmmaker partner David Furnish have ended months of speculation and announced the date they will exchange vows.
The celebrity couple will tie the knot on December 21 at their country home in Windsor.
“We are definitely going to do it and we’re not going to do it in secret,” John told Britain's ITV1.
Same-sex domestic partnerships become legal in the UK December 5. Under the civil unions law people entering into legal domestic partnerships must publicly announce their plans at least 15 days in advance.

Although the domestic partner registry offers most of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage they cannot be called marriages.

The couple has not said why they chose to enter a civil union in John's homeland rather than go to Canada where Furnish is a citizen and legally marry.

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," Elton told a British newspaper last month, crediting Furnish with helping him get off drugs.

posted by Anthony # 10:41 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 27, 2005 1:30 pm ET

(Albany, New York) New York State's highest court ruled on Friday that New Paltz mayor Jason West must stand trial on 24 counts of violating the state's domestic relations law for marrying same-sex couples without marriage licenses last year.

West performed the marriages in front of the village hall on Feb. 27, 2004.

The charges were dismissed last summer by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages.

Ruling on an appeal from prosecutors, Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael Bruhn reinstated the charges earlier this year, ruling that the criminal case against West was not about the constitutionality of gay marriage, but whether West lived up to his oath of office to uphold the law.

West's lawyers sought to have the case heard directly by the New York Court of Appeals. In today's ruling the Appeals court said that the case must first be heard by lower courts.
West's attorney had no immediate comment on the ruling.

The mayor still has a motion to dismiss the charges "in the interest of justice" pending. The town court judge could dismiss the case.

Meanwhile, several cases by same-sex couples are working their way through the court system on their way to the Court of Appeals.

posted by Anthony # 10:39 AM

May 27, 2005
New York Times
By GINIA BELLAFANTE
On a spring morning not long ago, Lura Stiller sat in her stocking feet in a sunny cottage in Cambridge, Mass., helping Cary Friedman and his partner, Rick Wellisch, calm their daughter, a 3-month-old in a pink T-shirt.

Ms. Stiller, 34, a homemaker from the Dallas suburbs, likes to say that the number of gay people in her acquaintance before she met Dr. Friedman, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Wellisch, an internist, amounted to zero. "Everything I knew about gay people I knew from TV, which meant that everything I knew about gay people I learned from 'Will and Grace' and 'The L Word,' " she said.

In December, Ms. Stiller gave birth to the baby, named Samantha, for Dr. Friedman and Dr. Wellisch, conceived with a donor egg and the sperm from one of the partners. (They chose not to know which.) In her decision to work with them Ms. Stiller is part of a small but growing movement of surrogate mothers choosing gay couples over traditional families.

As legislatures debate giving gay couples the right to marry - 14 states have amended their constitutions to prevent it - hundreds of couples are finding ways to create families with or without marriage through surrogates like Ms. Stiller, who are willing to help them have children genetically linked to them and to bypass the often difficult legal challenges gay men face in adoption.

The exact number of surrogates who have worked with gay couples is unknown, but close to half of the 60 or so agencies and law firms around the country that broker arrangements between surrogate mothers and prospective parents work with gay couples or are seeking to, through advertising.

Within the close-knit world of professional childbearers, many of whom share their joys and disillusionments online and in support groups, gay couples have developed a reputation as especially grateful clients, willing to meet a surrogate's often intense demands for emotional connection, though the relationships can give rise to other complications within the surrogate's family and community.

Many surrogates who choose to work for gay couples say they feel ill equipped or reluctant to deal with the sense of hopelessness and failure expressed by married women and men who have struggled unsuccessfully for years to bear children. Still others are drawn to men as clients because they fear the possible resentments and jealousies in working so closely with other women.

Surrogates, who are paid about $20,000 above and beyond medical expenses to carry a child, are responsible for approximately 1,000 births a year, according to the Organization of Parents Through Surrogacy, a nonprofit group in Gurnee, Ill., that records births brokered through agencies and privately over the Internet.

The many surrogates who choose not to work with gay couples frequently cite a spouse's disapproval or fears that their own children might be stigmatized by classmates and neighbors. In some instances surrogacy brokers bow to their own reservations. Ann Coleman, an adoption and surrogacy lawyer in Greenville, S.C., said she would not pair women with gay couples.
Though she once represented a lesbian couple in a custody suit against their former husbands, Ms. Coleman said she believed gay couples should pursue children through adoption, not surrogacy. "I don't know that I'd go to the extreme to help them do this," she added.

In the last 13 years, Ms. Stiller has had five children: one with her first husband, two with her current husband and two more as a surrogate.

Her first excursion into the world of surrogacy, for a Florida husband and wife, left her feeling unappreciated and depleted, she said.

Though the couple visited her in her 18th week of pregnancy and brought gifts for her children, Ms. Stiller sought a deeper relationship with the intended mother, a 40-year-old doctor.
"She would call me as if I were working on a project," Ms. Stiller said. "She wouldn't say: 'Hi, how are you feeling? Are you enjoying the weather?' Nothing. There was never any chitchat."
In her 37th week, Ms. Stiller experienced early contractions and called the woman, who drove to Texas right away, but Ms. Stiller remained displeased with her level of engagement.
"She was here for two and half weeks, and she never made an opportunity to share in my family," Ms. Stiller said. "It was very important for me to have my children see that we were helping to create a family, that Mommy wasn't giving away a brother or a sister."
A friend in the surrogate world suggested she find a gay couple through the agency Circle Surrogacy.

John Weltman, a Boston lawyer, had a challenging time finding women to carry children for gay men when he founded Circle Surrogacy a decade ago. Today, he said, 80 percent of the surrogate mothers who come to him say they would be willing to work with gay couples, and half prefer to work with gay couples.

In Los Angeles, Growing Generations, a company formed to help gay couples become parents through egg donation and surrogacy, is responsible for over 300 births, increasing from four births in 1998 to 108 within the last 17 months.

Dawn Buras, a Pennsylvania mother of four, has been to a fertility clinic in Los Angeles three times to receive embryonic transplants for a male couple in Milton, Mass. On each occasion the men accompanied her to the West Coast. They took adjacent hotel rooms, dined out and visited the set of "Desperate Housewives." The pregnancy attempts failed, but still the men try, refusing to work with anyone else.

And Ms. Buras remains committed, and plans to return for another attempt in June, despite the limitations their efforts have placed on her intimate life. According to her contract, Ms. Buras cannot have sex with her husband from one month before the transfer to one month after. Though her husband has been very supportive, she explained, "I can't say that it doesn't bother him, because it does."

Nearly all agencies require that surrogates already have children of their own and that they and their husbands undergo medical and psychological screening to determine that they can handle the strains surrogacy inevitably levies on families.

When Ms. Stiller sent her 13-year-old son to school with a strip of pictures of Samantha and her two fathers in his knapsack, the boy tucked the pictures of the two men away, worrying that he or the situation itself would be made fun of.

Dr. Hilary Hanafin, the chief psychologist at the Center for Surrogate Parenting in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Encino, the country's largest surrogacy agency, said many surrogates with teenage children shy away from working with gay couples for such reasons. "The mother does not want to show up for a middle-school track meet and say, 'I'm pregnant for a gay couple,' " Dr. Hanafin said.

And sometimes relatives cannot withhold their judgments. "I had one surrogate whose mother-in-law disowned her," said Amy Zaslow, a consultant in Acton, Mass., to surrogates and prospective parents. "She did not walk into the house through the entire pregnancy." At Christmas, Ms. Zaslow said, the woman's children went to their grandmother's house, and she was not invited along.

Most surrogates today, for heterosexual or gay couples, work as gestational carriers, meaning they bring children to term but not with their own genetic material. (Couples availing themselves of surrogacy typically get eggs from banks where donors are identified by their height, weight, College Board and I.Q. scores.)

For Ann Nelson, 36, a mother of four in Wheeling, W.Va., an urge toward surrogacy began to surface in college. The first couple with whom she tried to work, a man and a woman from New England, asked her to sign a contract before insemination that stipulated she would eat no processed foods or refined sugars during her pregnancy.

"I thought, 'Have you ever been to Wheeling, W.Va.?' " said Ms. Nelson, who decided not to go forward with that couple. "Where was I going to find these things?

"I knew that surrogacy was not going to be a cakewalk, but I hadn't expected and wasn't prepared for this level of micromanagement."

She has since borne three children for two gay couples.

The typical surrogate, according to the Center for Surrogate Parenting, is a woman of 21 to 37, who has had two children and 13 years of formal education. In many cases, she is motivated by a desire to be pregnant, as well as by a desire for attention.

Working with gay couples, psychologists say, minimizes the need for a certain kind of emotional vigilance that can displace the surrogate's own needs from center stage. "Surrogate mothers who work with heterosexual couples need to be incredibly sensitive to the loss and trauma that the infertile woman has suffered," Dr. Hanafin said.

Some surrogates also say they find the sense of defiance in providing gay couples with children meaningful.

"In all honesty, there's a bit of a rebellious nature in me," acknowledged Shannon Klein, a mother of three in Cypress, Calif., who home-schools her children. "I know that there are people who wouldn't approve of being a surrogate for gay parents, and that has made it more intriguing."

Ms. Klein has borne two children for two gay couples, and she is pregnant with twins for a third.
"When she initially approached me with this, I said, 'You want to do what?' " commented Ms. Klein's husband, Mark. "But we've developed friendships with these people, not fly-by-nights, but lifelong relationships with people we may never have met otherwise."

Ms. Stiller's visit to Cambridge in March was her second. She made her first, as a surprise to the future fathers, when she was 35 weeks pregnant, to reciprocate for the flowers they sent and the visits they made, including one for her ultrasound test. They cared for her children in Texas while she recuperated from giving birth to Samantha before Christmas. Seeing the baby for the first time, she said, "was like seeing the baby of your best friend."

Dr. Friedman said, "We didn't go into this saying, 'We want an intense relationship,' but I didn't necessarily expect that we'd develop the bond that we have."

They will have little competition for Ms. Stiller's affections. She will be working with no other couples in the future. When her husband, Keith, returned home last month from Iraq, where he had been stationed for a year, he told her he did not want her to work as a surrogate again.
"He was concerned for my health and emotional well-being," Ms. Stiller said. "For a year your life is devoted to someone else's.'

"And physically I think he wanted me to get back to my wonderful size 8."

posted by Anthony # 7:44 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 26, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Washington) New hate crimes legislation introduced today in the House would amend existing hate crimes laws that cover crimes motivated by race, color, national origin and religion to include crimes based on actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity.

If passed, the legislation would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs because of the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity.

For more than a decade bill have been filed almost annually to include gays in hate crime laws and each time they have died.

The first attempt to pass a hate crime bill failed in 1994 and further attempts have died almost annually since then.

The last attempt failed in October. The measure was contained in a massive defense department bill as add ons. It was stripped out during conference, the procedure where different versions of bills in the House and Senate are "rationalized" for a final vote.

The bill filed Thursday, by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), IIeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), John Conyers (D-MI); Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), is the first attempt, however, to include protections for the transgendered.

"We realized that we needed to make a small change to last year's bill by explicitly including transgendered persons for protection under this bill," Frank told a Capitol Hill news conference this morning.

"It is important to carefully identify those people who are most likely to be singled out for pernicious acts," said Frank.

Congressman Shays urged other Republicans to support the bill.

"Franklin Roosevelt once said, 'We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.' That statement is no less true today than it was back then. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides an important safety net to ensure victims of hate crimes receive the justice to which they are entitled," said Shays.

"Transgender and gay Americans deserve the same clear protections against hate crimes as other Americans," said HRC President Joe Solmonese in a statement.

The 2004 bill, which did not include the transgendered, brought sharp criticism from transsexual groups.

"Given the pervasive nature of hate violence against transgender people, any hate crimes bill that fails to specifically include transgender people would be deeply flawed, both morally and from a law enforcement perspective," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

However, the Senate version of the bill does not include the transgendered.

"We hope the Senate will now update its bill with the new House language so that we can support it as well," Foreman said.

In April a report released by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs showed violence against members of the LGBT community is on the rise.

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 the 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.

According to a 2002 Human Rights Campaign-commissioned poll, two-thirds of voters favor having hate crime laws that cover transgender people.

"The public support is there," said Solmonese. "Congress should act swiftly to ensure local law enforcement agencies have the tools they need from the federal government to combat hate crimes against the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community."

The legislation also has the support of PFLAG.

"As a parent, I am painfully aware that our children could be targets of hate violence at any time just because of who they are," said Sam Thoron, PFLAG's national president.

"Many of us have already faced the murders of, or assaults on, our children and loved ones. Our families and friends don't deserve these attacks -- no one does."

posted by Anthony # 7:41 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 26, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Newark, New Jersey) A Newark judge has granted a lesbian couple the right to have both of their names listed on their child's birth certificate.

The ruling is the first of its kind in New Jersey and guarantees both women full parental rights to the child.

Superior Court Judge Patricia Medina Talbert said she based her decision on New Jersey's artificial insemination statute. The law protects a child's relationship to a non-biological parent who consents to his spouse's artificial insemination.

The case involved Kimberly Robinson and her partner Jeanne LoCicero who are registered under the state's domestic partner law. The couple also married in Canada last summer.
When they decided to have a baby, Robinson used artificial insemination through an anonymous donor. She gave birth to a girl, Vivian on April 30, 2005.

Although LoCicero could have become an adoptive parent to Vivian the couple believed it was in the child's best interests for both parents to be listed as birth parents.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey argued that although the artificial insemination statute was written in terms of "husband" and "wife," the statute seeks to ensure the best interests of children, it must be read in a manner consistent with that purpose.

Judge Talbert agreed, noting in her ruling that any possible interest in limiting the statute to children of heterosexual couples only was not sufficient to overcome the best interests of the child.

New Jersey courts have long recognized that, in parentage cases, the best interests of the child are paramount and that a child should not be denied the right to have two loving parents regardless of the intended parents' sexual orientations.

"We are thrilled that the court gave legal recognition to our family, and we are relieved that we won't have the uncertainty and fear about whether our daughter would be protected if something happened to one of us," said Robinson.

"The court's decision ensures that Vivian's relationship to Jeanne is recognized as of Vivian's birth, rather than placing her rights in legal limbo while awaiting adoption proceedings," said William Singer of Singer & Fedun, who represented the couple on behalf of the ACLU-NJ.
"Delaying recognition of Jeanne's relationship to Vivian would have put Vivian's rights at risk, depriving her of being immediately acknowledged as having two parents who are responsible for her both legally and financially."

Because the question at issue was the relationship between Jeanne and her child (as opposed to the relationship between Jeanne and Kimberly), the court specifically did not address whether New Jersey should recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage.

Rather, the significance of the couple's Canadian marriage was that it provided one more piece of evidence that established the couple has done everything possible "to declare and to be recognized as committed partners, a married couple, and a dedicated family."

posted by Anthony # 7:40 AM

by Mary Ellen Peterson 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 26, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California will go to a full vote in the Assembly next week.

The measure was approved Wednesday night by the Appropriations Committee, the final step in getting to the floor for a vote. The legislation was one of a handful of bills earmarked for the lower house. The committee shelved 506 other bills.

"We have very high hopes it will prevail," Equality California spokesperson Eddie Gutierrez told 365Gay.com.

"But as every piece of LGBT civil rights legislation that reached this stage of the process -- from hate crimes to domestic partnerships - the vote will come down to the wire."
The legislation is called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, and was authored by openly gay Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco).

The bill would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.

A similar bill last year was pulled by Leno when it became obvious there were not enough votes to pass it. This time though, the measure has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage are vowing a fight and have called on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to come out publicly against the legislation.

So far 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 of same-sex marriage also is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal.

Meanwhile, a a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.

Wednesday, LGBT groups and their supporters announced a broad coalition to combat any attempt to amend the Constitution.

posted by Anthony # 7:39 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 26, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court heard its second case in a week involving same-sex couples. Today the issue was whether a private country club could refuse to provide a family membership to a lesbian couple.

Lambda Legal represents B. Birgit Koebke and Kendall French, domestic partners who were denied the full benefit of Koebke's membership at Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego because they are not legally married.

Bernardo Heights Country Club's membership policy allows a spouse to be included in membership. Although Koebke and French have been domestic partners since 1993, Bernardo Heights Country Club refused to recognize the couple's relationship, limited how frequently they could use the course together, and forced them to pay additional greens fees whenever French seeks to play golf as Koebke's "guest."

Lambda Legal argued that the club's rules violate California's civil rights laws.

"The case basically asks whether businesses in California can provide benefits that are limited to couples that are married," said Lambda attorney Jon Davidson.

"So long as same-sex couples can't get married, you are essentially excluding all those couples. It means no gay people are ever going to be able to get the benefits."

Lawyers for the club argued that the rules do not amount to discrimination because they apply to all unmarried people.

Attorney John Shiner said the rules also have nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender, adding that the of issue of whether domestic partners should be treated on the same legal plane as married people "is a question for the Legislature to decide."

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a brief in the case, arguing that "treating registered domestic partners differently from married couples" violates the civil rights act.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights and the California Women's Law Center also filed an amicus brief with the Court urging it to find that the club's policy discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

"The policy promulgated by the Bernardo Heights Country Club represents a long and continuing history of discrimination against women by golf clubs. This club policy perpetuates sexist stereotypes that continue to exclude lesbians and other women from political, professional, and business opportunities," said Kate Kendell, Executive Director of NCLR.
"Because same-sex couples cannot marry in the State of California, a policy that limits full membership benefits to married people discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. That simply is unfair and unlawful."

The rights of same-sex couples at private golf clubs is also a question being debated in Georgia.
In December Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin directed Atlanta's solicitor to fine Druid Hills Country Club $500 a day for each day, up to 180 days, it does not comply with a city LGBT rights ordinance after the club refused to grant a family membership to two same-sex couples. The club then filed suit against the city alleging the ordinance is illegal and the city's own solicitor refused to prosecute Druid Hills claiming the ordinance may be unconstitutional.

In addition to the country club suit at the California Supreme Court, a trio of cases involving the rights and obligations of same-sex parents were rolled together and argued earlier in the week.

posted by Anthony # 7:38 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 27, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, the leading contender for the Democratic nomination for governor, has run headlong into two serious, but opposing, potential stumbling blocks - supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.

Reilly who less than a year ago opposed gay marriage now says he supports it. He announced that position earlier this month at the state Democratic Party convention where he said that it is time for the state to move on. The convention went on to endorse a platform that included a statement supporting same-sex marriage.

Reilly's remarks drew immediate condemnation from conservative groups opposed to gay marriage but praise from gay activists.

But, now, Reilly says his support for gay marriage does not include abolishing a 1913 state law barring out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

A spokesperson for the Attorney General said that Reilly will continue to defend the law that was created after Massachusetts began allowing interracial marriages at the turn of the last century and states where it was still illegal complained that mixed race couples were going to Massachusetts to wed and then return home to fight the local bans.

The law had not been used since the US Supreme Court ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional in 1967 but was revived by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts.

The law is now being challenged in the Supreme Judicial Court and Reilly's office is in charge of fighting on behalf of maintaining it.

This week Republicans at the State House questioned whether after his statements in support of gay marriage Reilly could continue defending the law.

His office now says that he will vigorously argue for retention of the out-of-state ban.
That brought an angry response from LGBT civil rights advocates.

Arline Isaacson, cochair of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, accused Reilly of trying to play both sides of the issue in a "calloused" bid to garner support from both conservatives and gays.
''I think it is deplorable that the highest-ranking elected official of the Democratic Party in this state would act that way," Isaacson told the Boston Globe.

''Tom Reilly has to decide what he really thinks and feels about this issue. Defending an obviously antigay application of this law is reprehensible."

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 27, 2005 7:30 am ET

(Frankfort, Kentucky) Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been ruled valid.
The amendment, which was approved by voters last fall, bars gay and lesbian couples from marrying and forbids the state from recognizing civil unions or any "legal status identical to or similar to marriage.". It passed by a 3-to-1 margin.

Three Kentucky residents went to court arguing that the question put to voters was unconstitutional because it dealt with two separate issues - marriage and civil unions. Kentucky is one of a number of states which require ballot initiatives to deal with only one topic.

The Kentucky Fairness Alliance which opposed the amendment said that it would do far more than its supporters had said and could result in a ban on prenuptial agreements and other contractual arrangements between both gay and heterosexual couples.

Franklin County Circuit Judge Roger Crittenden, in a written judgment released Thursday evening, dismissed the suit, saying that the question was properly presented to voters.
"The need, wisdom and economic and social desirability of the amendment are not before this court," Crittenden wrote. "It would be overstepping judicial bounds to pass judgment on the value and worthiness of the legislative purpose."

Kentucky was among 11 states that passed same-sex marriage amendments last November.
"It's disappointing that we have not found a way to treat fairly all of the people in our communities and all the variety of life that they reflect," said the Rev. Albert Pennybacker, a Protestant minister who was one of the plaintiffs.

"I think the amendment is rooted in a kind of religiosity that's often judgmental and mean-spirited."

But, supporters of the amendment said they were not surprised by the ruling.

"The Kentucky electorate overwhelmingly wanted to protect marriage from any kind of redefinition, and so they amended the Kentucky Constitution," Kent Ostrander, executive director of the Lexington-based Family Foundation told the AP in a telephone interview.

posted by Anthony # 7:36 AM

May 27, 2005
New York Times
By GINIA BELLAFANTE
On a spring morning not long ago, Lura Stiller sat in her stocking feet in a sunny cottage in Cambridge, Mass., helping Cary Friedman and his partner, Rick Wellisch, calm their daughter, a 3-month-old in a pink T-shirt.

Ms. Stiller, 34, a homemaker from the Dallas suburbs, likes to say that the number of gay people in her acquaintance before she met Dr. Friedman, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Wellisch, an internist, amounted to zero. "Everything I knew about gay people I knew from TV, which meant that everything I knew about gay people I learned from 'Will and Grace' and 'The L Word,' " she said.

In December, Ms. Stiller gave birth to the baby, named Samantha, for Dr. Friedman and Dr. Wellisch, conceived with a donor egg and the sperm from one of the partners. (They chose not to know which.) In her decision to work with them Ms. Stiller is part of a small but growing movement of surrogate mothers choosing gay couples over traditional families.

As legislatures debate giving gay couples the right to marry - 14 states have amended their constitutions to prevent it - hundreds of couples are finding ways to create families with or without marriage through surrogates like Ms. Stiller, who are willing to help them have children genetically linked to them and to bypass the often difficult legal challenges gay men face in adoption.

The exact number of surrogates who have worked with gay couples is unknown, but close to half of the 60 or so agencies and law firms around the country that broker arrangements between surrogate mothers and prospective parents work with gay couples or are seeking to, through advertising.

Within the close-knit world of professional childbearers, many of whom share their joys and disillusionments online and in support groups, gay couples have developed a reputation as especially grateful clients, willing to meet a surrogate's often intense demands for emotional connection, though the relationships can give rise to other complications within the surrogate's family and community.

Many surrogates who choose to work for gay couples say they feel ill equipped or reluctant to deal with the sense of hopelessness and failure expressed by married women and men who have struggled unsuccessfully for years to bear children. Still others are drawn to men as clients because they fear the possible resentments and jealousies in working so closely with other women.

Surrogates, who are paid about $20,000 above and beyond medical expenses to carry a child, are responsible for approximately 1,000 births a year, according to the Organization of Parents Through Surrogacy, a nonprofit group in Gurnee, Ill., that records births brokered through agencies and privately over the Internet.

The many surrogates who choose not to work with gay couples frequently cite a spouse's disapproval or fears that their own children might be stigmatized by classmates and neighbors. In some instances surrogacy brokers bow to their own reservations. Ann Coleman, an adoption and surrogacy lawyer in Greenville, S.C., said she would not pair women with gay couples.
Though she once represented a lesbian couple in a custody suit against their former husbands, Ms. Coleman said she believed gay couples should pursue children through adoption, not surrogacy. "I don't know that I'd go to the extreme to help them do this," she added.

In the last 13 years, Ms. Stiller has had five children: one with her first husband, two with her current husband and two more as a surrogate.

Her first excursion into the world of surrogacy, for a Florida husband and wife, left her feeling unappreciated and depleted, she said.

Though the couple visited her in her 18th week of pregnancy and brought gifts for her children, Ms. Stiller sought a deeper relationship with the intended mother, a 40-year-old doctor.
"She would call me as if I were working on a project," Ms. Stiller said. "She wouldn't say: 'Hi, how are you feeling? Are you enjoying the weather?' Nothing. There was never any chitchat."
In her 37th week, Ms. Stiller experienced early contractions and called the woman, who drove to Texas right away, but Ms. Stiller remained displeased with her level of engagement.

"She was here for two and half weeks, and she never made an opportunity to share in my family," Ms. Stiller said. "It was very important for me to have my children see that we were helping to create a family, that Mommy wasn't giving away a brother or a sister."

A friend in the surrogate world suggested she find a gay couple through the agency Circle Surrogacy.

John Weltman, a Boston lawyer, had a challenging time finding women to carry children for gay men when he founded Circle Surrogacy a decade ago. Today, he said, 80 percent of the surrogate mothers who come to him say they would be willing to work with gay couples, and half prefer to work with gay couples.

In Los Angeles, Growing Generations, a company formed to help gay couples become parents through egg donation and surrogacy, is responsible for over 300 births, increasing from four births in 1998 to 108 within the last 17 months.

Dawn Buras, a Pennsylvania mother of four, has been to a fertility clinic in Los Angeles three times to receive embryonic transplants for a male couple in Milton, Mass. On each occasion the men accompanied her to the West Coast. They took adjacent hotel rooms, dined out and visited the set of "Desperate Housewives." The pregnancy attempts failed, but still the men try, refusing to work with anyone else.

And Ms. Buras remains committed, and plans to return for another attempt in June, despite the limitations their efforts have placed on her intimate life. According to her contract, Ms. Buras cannot have sex with her husband from one month before the transfer to one month after. Though her husband has been very supportive, she explained, "I can't say that it doesn't bother him, because it does."

Nearly all agencies require that surrogates already have children of their own and that they and their husbands undergo medical and psychological screening to determine that they can handle the strains surrogacy inevitably levies on families.

When Ms. Stiller sent her 13-year-old son to school with a strip of pictures of Samantha and her two fathers in his knapsack, the boy tucked the pictures of the two men away, worrying that he or the situation itself would be made fun of.

Dr. Hilary Hanafin, the chief psychologist at the Center for Surrogate Parenting in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Encino, the country's largest surrogacy agency, said many surrogates with teenage children shy away from working with gay couples for such reasons. "The mother does not want to show up for a middle-school track meet and say, 'I'm pregnant for a gay couple,' " Dr. Hanafin said.

And sometimes relatives cannot withhold their judgments. "I had one surrogate whose mother-in-law disowned her," said Amy Zaslow, a consultant in Acton, Mass., to surrogates and prospective parents. "She did not walk into the house through the entire pregnancy." At Christmas, Ms. Zaslow said, the woman's children went to their grandmother's house, and she was not invited along.

Most surrogates today, for heterosexual or gay couples, work as gestational carriers, meaning they bring children to term but not with their own genetic material. (Couples availing themselves of surrogacy typically get eggs from banks where donors are identified by their height, weight, College Board and I.Q. scores.)

For Ann Nelson, 36, a mother of four in Wheeling, W.Va., an urge toward surrogacy began to surface in college. The first couple with whom she tried to work, a man and a woman from New England, asked her to sign a contract before insemination that stipulated she would eat no processed foods or refined sugars during her pregnancy.

"I thought, 'Have you ever been to Wheeling, W.Va.?' " said Ms. Nelson, who decided not to go forward with that couple. "Where was I going to find these things?

"I knew that surrogacy was not going to be a cakewalk, but I hadn't expected and wasn't prepared for this level of micromanagement."

She has since borne three children for two gay couples.

The typical surrogate, according to the Center for Surrogate Parenting, is a woman of 21 to 37, who has had two children and 13 years of formal education. In many cases, she is motivated by a desire to be pregnant, as well as by a desire for attention.

Working with gay couples, psychologists say, minimizes the need for a certain kind of emotional vigilance that can displace the surrogate's own needs from center stage. "Surrogate mothers who work with heterosexual couples need to be incredibly sensitive to the loss and trauma that the infertile woman has suffered," Dr. Hanafin said.

Some surrogates also say they find the sense of defiance in providing gay couples with children meaningful.

"In all honesty, there's a bit of a rebellious nature in me," acknowledged Shannon Klein, a mother of three in Cypress, Calif., who home-schools her children. "I know that there are people who wouldn't approve of being a surrogate for gay parents, and that has made it more intriguing."

Ms. Klein has borne two children for two gay couples, and she is pregnant with twins for a third.
"When she initially approached me with this, I said, 'You want to do what?' " commented Ms. Klein's husband, Mark. "But we've developed friendships with these people, not fly-by-nights, but lifelong relationships with people we may never have met otherwise."

Ms. Stiller's visit to Cambridge in March was her second. She made her first, as a surprise to the future fathers, when she was 35 weeks pregnant, to reciprocate for the flowers they sent and the visits they made, including one for her ultrasound test. They cared for her children in Texas while she recuperated from giving birth to Samantha before Christmas. Seeing the baby for the first time, she said, "was like seeing the baby of your best friend."

Dr. Friedman said, "We didn't go into this saying, 'We want an intense relationship,' but I didn't necessarily expect that we'd develop the bond that we have."

They will have little competition for Ms. Stiller's affections. She will be working with no other couples in the future. When her husband, Keith, returned home last month from Iraq, where he had been stationed for a year, he told her he did not want her to work as a surrogate again.
"He was concerned for my health and emotional well-being," Ms. Stiller said. "For a year your life is devoted to someone else's.'

"And physically I think he wanted me to get back to my wonderful size 8."

posted by Anthony # 7:31 AM

By WAYNE PARRY, AP from Newsday.com on the Web, May 26, 2005

NEWARK, N.J. -- A lesbian couple has won the right to have both their names listed on a birth certificate as the parents of a baby girl born to one of the women through artificial insemination. The decision _ the first of its kind in New Jersey _ guarantees both women full parental rights to the child. Kimberly Robinson and Jeanne LoCicero registered in New York as domestic partners in 2003 and got married in Canada last summer. They bought a house together in Essex County, and decided they wanted to have a child together. Robinson was impregnated using sperm from an anonymous donor, and their daughter, Vivian Ryan LoCicero, was born on April 30. "We're thrilled," LoCicero, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said Thursday. "We always felt like a family; now it's nice to know the court thinks we are one, too." "We are relieved that we won't have the uncertainty and fear about whether our daughter would be protected if something happened to one of us," added Robinson. The ruling by Superior Court Judge Patricia Medina Talbert in Newark on Wednesday eliminates the need for LoCicero to go through adoption proceedings in order to have the same parental rights as those of the birth mother. Ed Barocas, the ACLU's legal director for New Jersey, said the case dealt with the state's artificial insemination law, which protects a child's relationship to a non-biological parent who consents to a spouse's artificial insemination. The statute was written with the case in mind of a man who consents to the artificial insemination of his wife with another man's sperm, but should apply equally to same-sex partners, Barocas said. "It definitely provides protection to the child based on the equal protection laws, that this child should be no less protected than a child of a heterosexual union," he said. In considering the case, the judge noted the many steps the couple has gone through to demonstrate their commitment to one another as proof that they formed a stable union in the child's best interest. In addition to registering as domestic partners and getting married in Canada, the women bought a house near their families and friends who would provide a support network, sought a sperm donor with physical characteristics approximating those of LoCicero so the baby might look like her as well as Robinson, and gave the child LoCicero's surname. Because the question at issue was the relationship of LoCicero and the child, and not LoCicero's relationship with Robinson, the court did not need to rule on whether their marriage in Canada is legally valid in New Jersey, Barocas said. "We do find ourselves in a time where the American family composed of mom, dad and two children applies, in fact, to only 23.5 percent of the American population," the judge wrote in her decision. "LoCicero is not required, under law or in equity, to take upon her the legal obligation of parentage. "Her commitment, one could argue, is only to Robinson," the judge wrote. "Her voluntary effort to be recognized as a parent under the law with its attendant obligations and responsibilities evinces her desire, intention and commitment to be a parent for Vivian Ryan."

posted by Anthony # 12:55 PM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: May 25, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Washington) The man in charge of protecting the civil rights of federal workers told a Senate Committee that he will not protect LGBT employees.

Special counsel Scott J. Bloch was testifying about complaints his office has adopted an extreme conservative position and has reprimanded people in his own office who disagree with him.
Bloch has been under fire for more than year for stonewalling complaints of discrimination by LGBT federal workers.

In February 2004 he ordered references to sexual orientation removed from the Office of the Special Counsel website. Since 1998, when President Bill Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting bias in the civil service, the OSC has taken that to include sexuality.

A month after the references disappeared from the OSC website Bloch said gay workers were no longer protected.

After intense pressure from Federal Globe, an organization for gay and lesbian workers, and from Democrats on The Hill, the White House said it would honor an Executive Order signed by President Clinton.

But, last September, with Bloch's approval, several union contracts negotiated with various branches of the government removed the list of categories that are protected replacing them with the more nebulous phrase "any class protected by law."

Appearing before the the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal workforce and the District of Columbia, Bloch was grilled by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).

Bloch told Levin that despite the Clinton Executive Order and the Bush administration's pledge to honor it, "We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them."

Levin then reminded him of the statement issued by the White House last year that said, "Longstanding federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation. President Bush expects federal agencies to enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected from unfair discrimination at work."

Levin asked Bloch if he did not believe the President's statement was binding on him.

"It is binding on me," Bloch said, "but it is not something I can prosecute in my agency. . . . I am limited by the enforcement statutes that you give me."

At that point Levin asked if Bloch would recommend Congress amend the law to add sexual orientation to the protections for federal employees. Bloch declined to take a position saying that it was a matter for Congress not him to comment on.

Bloch, who is a Bush appointee, drew fire from Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
"Many of us who disagree with President Bush on a wide range of issues were pleased when he announced that he would adhere to the policy set forward by President Clinton to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workforce," Frank said in a statement.

"In fact, when this policy was challenged after its promulgation by President Clinton in 1998, the House voted by a 252 to 176 majority to affirm it. President Bush's continuation of this policy marked an important step in establishing a consensus on basic fairness in the United States. What Scott Bloch has done now is to shatter this agreement that employment in the federal workforce should be based solely on merit, and he has also unfortunately raised questions about the sincerity of President Bush's commitment, since he is a Bush appointee to the position which enforces this. It is essential that the President act promptly to do what is necessary to see that the policy he has announced is in fact enforced by his appointee."

The Human Rights Campaign also condemned Bloch's position.

"We continue to be dismayed at the fact that Scott Bloch is ignoring over 20 years of consistent interpretation," Praveen Fernandes told 365Gay.com.

Bloch’s actions mark a clear breach of a specific promise made to the Log Cabin Republicans by the Bush campaign during the 2000 election LCR said in a statement.

“As part of Log Cabin’s decision to endorse President Bush in 2000, the campaign pledged to Log Cabin that non-discrimination policies for federal employees would be respected. Log Cabin would not have endorsed Bush without this promise. We ask the Bush Administration to remain true to their word and put an end to this distraction,” said Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero.

The White House has not commented on Bloch's remarks to the committee.

Federal GLOBE, which represents LGBT workers in the government said it no longer trusts Bloch.

"He persists in confusing civil rights law and the concept of 'protected classes' with the civil service law -- a law that has been interpreted under both Democratic and Republican administrations to provide protections to Federal employees against personnel actions based on sexual orientation -- most critically hiring and firing," Rob Sandler a Federal GLOBE board member told 365Gay.com.

" It astounds us that the White House continues to tolerate this rogue employee. It really is time for him to go."

posted by Anthony # 7:30 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 25, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) Gay groups and their supporters announced a massive battle plan on Wednesday to combat a proposed amendment to the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

At simultaneous press conferences in cities across California, representatives of more than 200 groups announced the formation of a coalition to oppose the amendment.

The coalition, which calls itself "Equality for All", will soon begin fundraising and organizing, its leaders announced.

A group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have the proposed amendment placed on the 2006 ballot. If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.

“The sponsors of this initiative are ‘hate groups’ who have decided that they are not going to let lesbian and gay people be fully accepted and fully a part of our society,” pastor Cecil Williams of Glide Memorial Church told a rally in San Francisco Wednesday.

“We are not going to take this sitting down. This type of initiative and this type of discrimination should not exist in the 21st century.”

Victor Hwang of the Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach said the Asian American community knows a lot about discrimination.

"In the past, state and federal laws have barred Asian American women from entering this country, have prohibited marriages between whites and ‘negroes, mulattoes, or Mongolians,’ and have directed that any U.S. citizen marrying an Asian would be stripped of their citizenship
“If passed, this initiative would make California the most backwards state in our nation and turn back our clocks more than a hundred years," said Hwang.

The "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" was filed with the state Attorney General's Office last week by the California Campaign for Children and Families, a group that has been involved in legal battles against same-sex marriage in the state.

Randy Thomasson the group's leader said that the CCCF decided to begin the initiative after state Assembly and Senate committees this month rejected a constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, a bill that would allow same-sex marriage is moving forward. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act passed a key committee late last month. The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It 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.

posted by Anthony # 7:29 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 25, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Washington) The Senate Wednesday confirmed the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the federal appeals court.

Owen is the first of three judicial nominees who will receive an up or down vote in the Senate following a controversial deal worked out between Democrats and Republicans on Monday to avoid a showdown over the use of filibusters.

The most contentious of the three nominations is that of former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. A vote on his nomination is expected early next week.

During 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.
In April Lambda Legal released a summary of Pryor's record showing 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.
The third nominee is Janice Rogers Brown.

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 pact between Democrats and Republicans brought mixed reaction Tuesday from LGBT groups. While the Human Rights Campaign noted that the agreement preserves the ability to block extremist nominees which will be particularly important when a nominee for the Supreme Court is named, other LGBT groups opposed the move.

posted by Anthony # 7:27 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: May 25, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Zurich) Swiss voters will go to the polls June 5 in the first European election on same-sex unions. Elsewhere in Europe the decision of how to recognize gay and lesbian relationships has been decided by governments.

Holland and Belgium have legalized same-sex marriage. Most other European Union nations have varying forms of domestic partnerships.

The Swiss Parliament last June passed legislation to create a civil unions registry and grant limited rights to same-sex couples - mainly in the areas of pensions, inheritance and taxes. But, opponents - headed by a small conservative religious party, the Federal Democratic Union - collected enough signatures to force a referendum on the issue.

The FDU claims that granting any rights to same-sex couples would undermine traditional marriage.

But Justice Minister Christoph Blocher disagrees, pointing out that the domestic partner registry would not have the same status as traditional marriages and that same-sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children or have access to fertility treatment.

Registered gay partnerships already exist in Geneva, Zurich and Neuchâtel. In Zurich 483 gay and lesbian couples have registered since the cantonal law came into effect in July 2003.
Churches in Switzerland are divided on civil unions. The Roman Catholic Church is opposed while the Federation of Protestant Churches supports them.

posted by Anthony # 7:26 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 25, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Madison, Wisconsin) The Wisconsin Legislature's budget committee has voted against providing domestic partner benefits to University of Wisconsin System employees, rejecting arguments from school officials that they are a needed recruitment and retention tool.
System officials had pushed for the change, saying they are losing needed employees because they can't offer health coverage to domestic partners, often pointing out UW-Madison is the only school in the Big Ten that doesn't offer them to employees.

But the Joint Finance Committee voted 13-3 to reject Gov. Jim Doyle's plan to give the UW System $1 million over the next two years to provide the benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, offered a motion to eliminate the extra money while allowing the system to find a way to pay for the benefits, saying it wouldn't cost the state anything. The committee rejected it.

Committee co-chairman Rep. Dean Kaufert, R-Neenah, said the governor underfunded his proposal and Pocan's motion would force the system to take money from other programs to pay for the benefits. The nonpartisan Legislature Fiscal Bureau estimates the plan could cost up to $2.2 million, depending on how many system employees sign up.

"The reality is there is a cost," Kaufert said.

Pocan, one of the Legislature's only openly gay members, accused Republicans of appealing to conservative Christian voters. He said the lack of domestic partner benefits insults system employees by sending them a message that the state doesn't consider their families legitimate.
He read a letter to the committee from one researcher who has brought in $2.5 million in outside grants since 2000 -- more than enough to offset the costs of the benefits -- but is considering offers to leave the university because it won't cover his partner of eight years.
A group of state employees filed suit last month seeking to force Wisconsin to provide them domestic partner benefits. Pocan noted Republican legislative leaders voted last week to hire a conservative Christian firm to represent lawmakers in the suit.

Rep. Scott Jensen countered it would be better to change pension benefits for UW System employees to improve retention and recruitment while appealing to more employees. Wisconsin is one of a handful of states that don't let university employees carrying their pension benefits with them from school to school, yet the governor has not proposed anything to address that.
The committee's vote eliminates the provision from the two-year budget it is currently crafting to fix Wisconsin's $1.6 billion deficit for the period through June 30, 2007. Expected revenues fall short of requested spending, and that imbalance must be made up through spending cuts, tax increases or both.

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 25, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) Advocates on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate say they are encouraged by a new poll showing Arizona voters nearly evenly divided on proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The statewide survey was conducted over the past week for KAET-TV, the Phoenix area PBS affiliate, shows that 49 percent of those asked said they would vote for the Protect Marriage Arizona.

But 41 percent said they oppose the amendment. Pollsters questioned 357 registered voters. The poll has a margin of error of 5.2 percent and could mean a virtual tie.

Protect Marriage Arizona said it was encouraged by the results noting that supporters of the amendment did not waver when told that it would not only would ban same-sex marriage but also would bar state and local governments from recognizing any legal status for unmarried couples whether gay or straight.

Opponents of the amendment are equally buoyed saying they believe they have a fighting chance to defeat the measure.

Pollster Bruce Merrill said the results show that the outcome could depend on voter turnout. Merrill said that same-sex marriage has polarized conservatives and older voters both of whom traditionally vote.

Gays on the other hand, he noted, will have to energize moderates many of whom do not regularly vote.

"The lower the turnout, the more it will help the religious right,'' he said.

Nearly three out of four Republicans with an opinion about the imitative said they would vote for the initiative. Independents were evenly split, with only a third of Democrats in support.
Protect Marriage Arizona will have to gather nearly 184,000 valid signatures over the next 14 months to put the issue on the November 2006 ballot.

Even though state law already outlaws same-sex unions, gay marriage opponents say further action needed "to protect the sanctity of families" by preventing judges from overturning the prohibition.

Last month, the Legislature passed a measure urging Congress to pass an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:24 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 26, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Tempe, Arizona) Prejudice is a form of "common sense", hard-wired into the human brain through evolution as an adaptive response to protect our prehistoric ancestors from danger, according to a new study by researchers at Arizona State University.

"By nature, people are group-living animals -- a strategy that enhances individual survival and leads to what we might call a 'tribal psychology'," says Steven Neuberg, ASU professor of social psychology, who authored the study with doctoral student Catherine Cottrell.

"It was adaptive for our ancestors to be attuned to those outside the group who posed threats such as to physical security, health or economic resources, and to respond to these different kinds of threats in ways tailored to have a good chance of reducing them."

The study appears in the May issue of the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology".
The study contends that, because human survival was based on group living, "outsiders" were viewed as – and often were – very real threats.

Unfortunately, says Neuberg, because evolved psychological tendencies are imperfectly attuned to the existence of dangers, people may react negatively to groups and their members even when they actually pose no realistic threat.

Neuberg and Cottrell had 235 European American students at ASU think about nine different groups: gay men, activist feminists, African Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, fundamentalist Christians, Mexican Americans, Native Americans and nonfundamentalist Christians.

The researchers then had the participants rate these groups on the threats they pose to American society (e.g., to physical safety, values, health, etc.) and report the emotions they felt toward these groups (e.g., fear, anger, disgust, pity, etc.).

Consistent with the researchers' hypotheses, findings revealed that distinct prejudices exist toward different groups of people. Some groups elicited prejudices characterized largely by fear, others by disgust, others by anger, and so on. Moreover, the different "flavors" of prejudice were associated with different patterns of perceived threat.

Follow-up work further shows that these different prejudices motivate inclinations toward different kinds of discrimination, in ways apparently aimed at reducing the perceived threat.
"Groups seen as posing threats to physical safety elicit fear and self-protective actions, groups seen as choosing to take more than they give elicit anger and inclinations toward aggression, and groups seen as posing health threats elicit disgust and the desire to avoid close physical contact," says Cottrell.

"One important practical implication of this research is that we may need to create different interventions to reduce inappropriate prejudices against different groups," says Neuberg.
For example, if one is trying to decrease prejudices among new college students during freshman orientation, different strategies might be used for bringing different groups together.
"For instance, given that whites stereotypically perceive blacks as threats to physical safety, it would be inadvisable to suggest a game of outdoor night-time basketball, given that darkness heightens people's fear. Sharing a plate of nachos might be a better choice," Cottrell says. "But if the aim is to reduce prejudice against gay men – viewed to pose a health treat because of association with AIDS, and thereby eliciting physical disgust –sharing finger food might not be a good idea."

Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place and that responses can't be dampened.

"People sometimes assume that because we say prejudice has evolved roots we are saying that specific prejudices can't be changed. That's simply not the case," Neuberg says. "What we think and feel and how we behave is typically the result of complex interactions between biological tendencies and learning experiences. Evolution may have prepared our minds to be prejudiced, but our environment influences the specific targets of those prejudices and how we act on them."

posted by Anthony # 7:23 AM

BY Matt Foreman, Executive DirectorNational Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
MEDIA CONTACT:Task Force Communications Department
Roberta Sklar, Director of Communications media@thetaskforce.org646-358-1465

"We recognize that the deal reached last night rebuffed the extreme position of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the right-wing leaders who have been scripting him, and preserved — at least for now — some form of extended debate to protect minority interests. Nonetheless, we feel a deep foreboding that, with this compromise, the Senate may turn out to have lost sight of critically important trees with the hope of possibly saving the forest:

The wholly unlawful 'nuclear option' is retained, and Frist and his extremist allies have already threatened to use it.

Three of the most dangerous, extreme and activist candidates ever nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals will get votes on the Senate floor.

The time-honored and wholly constitutional Senate tradition of the filibuster — the last line of defense for minority interests — has now been conditioned to be used only in 'extraordinary circumstances,' which are to be decided, effectively, by 14 senators, possibly putting out of reach the ability to stop nominees who would change the Constitution as we know it.

"We hope that the actions of these senators will result in more constructive consultation between the White House and moderate Republicans and Democrats about judicial nominations, resulting in acceptable, mainstream nominees. Our hopes in this regard are not high.

"In the meantime, we will join with fair-minded Americans in working to defeat these three extremist nominees now cleared for a vote on the Senate floor."

posted by Anthony # 6:43 AM

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: May 24, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(New York City) A United Church of Christ television commercial banned by the big three television networks, was named Outstanding 2004 Commercial for its positive LGBT portrayal.
The presentation was made at the first Images In Advertising Awards sponsored by The Commercial Closet.

The 30 second commercial was aimed at attracting gays and others who feel alienated by other denominations.

The 30-second commercial features two muscle-bound "bouncers" standing guard outside a picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services. Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator then proclaims the United Church of Christ's commitment that: "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here."
ABC, CBS, and NBC rejected the spots, calling them too controversial.

The ads were produced by Gotham Inc. They were accepted by some local stations across the country and by several cable channels.

The nonprofit Commercial Closet Association works to improve public opinion of the gay community through more informed LGBT portrayals in advertising.

The organization offers advertising sensitivity workshops and its web site, CommercialCloset.org, houses the world’s largest archive of LGBT-themed ads, with over 2,500 global examples, including ratings and analysis, Best Practices, and other resources.
Other awards presented at the event included:

·Outstanding Achievement by Advertising Industry Professional: Kenneth Cole was saluted for consistently creating attention-grabbing advertising that takes high-profile stands on political and social issues, including a 2004 campaign that promoted equal marriage rights.

·Outstanding Gay Market Creative Ad: Wyndham Hotels and its ad agency Kirshenbaum Bond + Partners were recognized for a series of ads that portrayed gay couples in a positive light and challenged clichés and stereotypes.

·Outstanding Mainstream Print Ad/Outdoor: PinkTV, France's 24-hour gay channel, was honored for featuring a 1984 photograph of former French President Francois Mitterrand and ex-German leader Helmut Kohl with the headline, "A relationship is about more than just sex." The ad attracted significant media attention last fall for the channel's launch.

·The Clean-Up-Your-Act Notice: General Motors Corp.'s Chevrolet Colorado and Campbell-Ewald Advertising earned this dubious distinction for a television commercial in which several men in a pickup truck become noticeably uncomfortable when one male passenger loudly sings the Shania Twain hit "Man, I Feel Like a Woman."

"The winners of the first-ever Commercial Closet Images in Advertising Awards have played a powerful role in shaping public opinion of the LGBT community," said Michael Wilke, founder and executive director of Commercial Closet Association.

posted by Anthony # 6:35 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 24, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Washington) A deal worked out between Democrats and Republicans to avoid the so-called 'nuclear option' - legislation restricting the use of filibusters to block the Senate from confirming conservative judicial nominees - has drawn mixed reaction from LGBT civil rights groups.
As reported by 365Gay.com Monday evening, the deal will allow up and down votes on three nominations - William Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. The other nominees that were being blocked by Democrats will remain in limbo.

During 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.
In April Lambda Legal released a summary of Pryor's record showing 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.
Owen and Brown also have records opposing LGBT civil rights.

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 deal brought mixed reaction Tuesday from LGBT groups.

The Human Rights Campaign supports the accord between Democrats and Republicans saying it preserves the minority's right to use a filibuster in the judicial nomination process.
"This compromise preserves the ability to block extremist nominees," said HRC President Joe Solmonese, in a statement Tuesday.

"This will be particularly important when a nominee for the Supreme Court is named. We laud this effort and those Senators from both sides of the aisle who crafted the agreement to protect our nation and put an end to the nuclear option."

But, PFLAG, which represents LGBT families, were critical of Democrats for agreeing to it.
"This is a bleak day for our families," said Jody Huckaby, PFLAG executive director. "The radical right continues to prey on our loved ones and, as evidenced by this deal, we have no defenders."

Lambda Legal said that the agreement means the Senate stepped back from the brink, but, "protecting the filibuster comes at a high price for the LGBT community.

"As part of this compromise, the full Senate in the days ahead will vote on whether to confirm perhaps the most antigay federal judicial nominee in memory. That's William H. Pryor," said Lambda Executive Director Kevin Cathcart.

And, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force warned that "the wholly unlawful 'nuclear option' is retained, and Frist and his extremist allies have already threatened to use it."

"We hope that the actions of these senators will result in more constructive consultation between the White House and moderate Republicans and Democrats about judicial nominations, resulting in acceptable, mainstream nominees. Our hopes in this regard are not high," said NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman.

posted by Anthony # 6:34 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 24, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) Legislation that would create civil unions and at the same time provide protections for gays and lesbians in housing and employment have been split off.

Civil unions were dropped from the bill, allowing the civil rights measures to proceed on their own. At the same time, a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators said they would draft a separate civil unions bill and would hold a public hearing on it next week.

Supporters of the move said that it would allow passage of at least one aspect of the original bill even if the other failed.

Sen. Alan Bates (D-Ashland) a member of the group behind the separate civil unions bill said that the language would be identical to that which was in the original legislation.
It would insert the words "civil union" and "partners" alongside "marriage" and "husband and wife" in state law.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski began the current session of the Legislature in January by appealing to lawmakers to outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and public services. In April he proposed legalizing civil unions.

Kulongoski spokesperson Anna Richter Taylor said civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation remain priorities for the governor.

"If the Senate leadership believes proceeding with two separate bills is the best strategy to move this forward so he can get legislation on his desk for a signature, then he wants them to proceed," she said.

Both measures stand a good chance of passage in the Democratic Senate, but face tough opposition in the Republican-led House.

Last November Oregon voters approved an amendment to state Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

The Oregon Supreme Court, in April, ruled that the marriages of some 3,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year were null and void. The marriages were performed last March in Multnomah County.

posted by Anthony # 6:32 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 24, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California State Supreme Court was told Tuesday that children of same-sex couples need protections equal to those given children in traditional households.
The court was hearing three cases involving the rights of children born to lesbian parents.
In her argument before the court, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Senior Staff Attorney, Courtney Joslin, argued that, “all children, not only those born to married or heterosexual parents, must have a legal right to support and care from both people who brought them into the world.”

Outside the court Joslin told reporters that, “the California Supreme Court’s decision will decide whether these children will be protected, or whether we’ll turn the clock back to the day when children born outside of marriage were punished for being ‘illegitimate.’”

Lower courts have ruled that parental rights are limited to the birth mother unless her partner has formally adopted the child. In situations involving in vitro fertilization it would mean the birth mother would have to relinquish her rights as a parent still leaving the child with only one mother.

In each of the three cases before the high court the full names of the parents are withheld to protect the identity of the children.

The first case involves Kristine Renee H. and Lisa Ann R. Parentage judgments often are used by same-sex couples (and different sex couples who have had the help of a gestational surrogate mother) who want to secure the legal relationships between both intended parents and the child early and fast, without waiting the longer period adoptions require; the judgments provide immediate legal ties to the child for the non-biological parent, and also cut off potential legal rights of a sperm donor or surrogate mother. Such judgments have been used for years in California, but are now at risk after a lesbian, Kristine H., sued to have the parentage agreement she entered into with her former partner invalidated. The couple separated two years after the birth of their child.

The second case is that of Elisa Maria B. v. Superior Court. After the couple in this case had children, the relationship ended and Elisa stopped financially supporting twins to whom her former partner had given birth, and her former partner, who was a stay-at-home mom. A trial court ruled that Elisa is a parent to the children because the two women planned the family together and Elisa held the children out as her own and therefore bears financial responsibility for them. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that Elisa should not be considered the other parent to the children and has no obligations to her family.

The third case is K.M. v. E.G. The two women in this case were in a committed relationship and planned a family. K.M. donated eggs to be implanted in E.G. who carried twins to term. They raised the children together for five years before the relationship ended. When the couple separated, E.G. wanted to keep the children from her former partner and is trying to sever any ties K.M. has with the children. A lower court found that since K.M. signed a waiver at the fertility clinic to donate her eggs to E.G., she has relinquished any legal ties to the children born from those eggs. The appeals court upheld that decision.

“There are hundreds of thousands of couples, including many same-sex couples, who rely on assisted reproduction to have children. Without question, those parent-child relationships are just as authentic and real as any others, and they should be protected equally under the law,” Joslin told the court.

Lambda Legal and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer were granted intervener status.
Lawyers for Lockyer told the justices that same-sex couples have the same legal duty to financially support the children they bring into this world as those of opposite-sex couples, because when only one of two people is required to provide support, it's the children who unfairly bear the burden.But lawyers for the three women who want to limit either their financial obligation to a former partner's children or an ex-lover's access to their own argue the situations are not analogous.

Laws intended to establish parentage in circumstances where both a mother and father played a biological role in conceiving a child can't be translated so easily to situations where conception required the use of reproductive technology, by necessity leaving one partner without a biological connection, they maintain.

Matthew Staver, a lawyer for the conservative group Liberty Counsel told the court that to recognize non-traditional families would be tantamount to recognizing gay marriage.
Staver said that only a family with a mother and a father should be considered legitimate.
The court is expected to rule in about 90 days.

posted by Anthony # 6:31 AM

20 February 2004
by Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com News centre, New York Bureau, ©365Gay.com® 2004

RainbowNetwork is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
(New York City) The United States is losing its technological edge over Europe because policies such as a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has put the nation at a disadvantage in competing for creative workers, according to a new economic study from a major university.The report, prepared for the Software Industry Centre at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, says that outsourcing jobs to third world countries is not as serious a long term problem is the country`s failure to attract "creative class" workers to the US.The study by Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor and the author of the report says America has more to fear from Sweden and Finland than from China or India.Florida says that instead of worrying about large countries with low-cost manufacturing and business processing the U.S. government needs to pay attention to places that are attracting and mobilizing the talent needed for knowledge-based industries."For years the United States possessed an unchallenged competitive advantage in its ability to attract the best and brightest from Europe, Scandinavia and around the world," Florida writes. "For the first time, that advantage seems to be imperilled."Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands "have considerable technological capabilities, have invested and continue to invest in developing creative talent and also appear to have the values and attitudes that are associated with the ability to attract creative people from the outside," Florida says. His study also identifies Ireland as "up-and-coming."But, America is no long attracting creative workers from abroad because it is seen as an intolerant society. He cites the lack of recognition of same-sex couples and the battle over gay marriage, and policies restricting stem cell research and the tightening of visa requirements as reasons the world`s brightest are no longer seeking to come to the US to work."The ability to compete and prosper in the global economy goes beyond trade in goods and services and flows of capital and investment. Instead, it increasingly turns on the ability of nations to attract, retain and develop creative people," Florida writes.In a ranking of states Florida found those with DOMA or which did not offer civil rights protections for gays at the bottom of the productivity list.

posted by Anthony # 12:34 AM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: May 23, 2005 11:00 am ET
(New York City) More than 2,000 people marched across the Brooklyn Bridge Sunday to demand marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The demonstration was sponsored by Marriage Equality New York. Most of the marchers were couples, many came with their children.

Carrying signs "Love is a family value," "God made us queer" and "Hetero-supremacy is immoral," the marchers braved high winds and the threat of rain.

As they crossed the bridge they chanted, "What do we want? Marriage equality. When do we want it? Now!"

It was the second annual Wedding March to fight for the legalization of gay marriage, and considerably larger than last year's.

This year's march was led by Gustavo Archilla, 90, and Elmer Lokkins, 86. They have been together since 1945.

Three separate challenges to New York State's ban on same-sex marriage are working their way through the state court system and will eventually wind up in the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.

posted by Anthony # 7:02 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 23, 2005 2:00 pm ET
(Waltham, Massachusetts) The chief justice of the Massachusetts court that legalized same-sex marriage told Brandeis University graduates on Sunday that judicial independence must be protected from "the will of the majority."Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the commencement speaker at the Waltham school, expressed concern over recent attacks against the judiciary.

"Our courts function as a pressure valve to defuse political and social tension," Marshall said. "As a nation, we have tacitly agreed that it is better to settle our large differences in the courtroom than in the street."

The SJC's 4-3 ruling in November 2003 that gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts sparked a firestorm of opposition around the nation. Conservative politicians including President Bush blamed "activist judges," including Marshall, for advancing a social agenda.

"I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activist' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," Marshall said. "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."

Marshall, who received an honorary degree, told the nearly 1,000 graduates that they must pick a side.

"Respect for the rule of law is deeply imbedded in our American experience but it is not embedded in our DNA," she said. "Each of you must decide whether to embrace, to protect the rule of law, or to repudiate it. Make no mistake, inaction and indifference are acts of repudiation."

Marshall referred to past U.S. court rulings school desegregation and civil rights as proof that an independent judiciary is vital.

"Individual rights and human dignity are vulnerable when they depend for protection on the will of the majority or the good faith of those in power," she said.

posted by Anthony # 7:01 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 23, 2005 2:00 pm ET
(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court Tuesday will hear arguments in a case involving the rights of lesbian parents.

There are three cases being considered by the high court. In all three cases the issue is co-parenting. The Supreme court has decided to hear all three cases together.

Lower courts have ruled that parental rights are limited to the birth mother unless her partner has formally adopted the child. In situations involving in vitro fertilization it would mean the birth mother would have to relinquish her rights as a parent still leaving the child with only one mother.

"California law is clear that all children must be protected, regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of their parents," said Courtney Joslin, Senior Staff Attorney for the NationalCenterfor Lesbian Rights. Joslin will argue the case before the Supreme Court.
"These children have the same needs as all other children for the support from both of the people who caused them to be brought into the world."

Lambda Legal and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer have been granted intervener status to make arguments supporting co-parenting.

Lockyer's office will argue that same-sex couples have the same legal duty to financially support the children they bring into this world as those of opposite-sex couples, because when only one of two people is required to provide support, it's the children who unfairly bear the burden.
Lambda Legal attorney Jennifer C. Pizer said she is confident the court will find in favor of same-sex parents.

"In our experience in courts around the country, more and more judges are seeing that our families need the same legal protection as everyone else," said Pizer.

Meanwhile, the conservative group Liberty Counsel will be allowed to argue against gay parenting.

"I think what's at stake is the definition of family,'' Liberty Counsel lawyer Matthew Staver told the San Francisco Chronicle. "If somebody can cohabitate and, by virtue of that, develop parental bonds, and thus parental rights, I think that undermines the biological parent's parental authority. If you start defining family by mere emotions, I think that undermines the core of the family itself.''

In each of the three cases before the high court the full names of the parents are withheld to protect the identity of the children.

The first case involves Kristine Renee H. and Lisa Ann R. Parentage judgments often are used by same-sex couples (and different sex couples who have had the help of a gestational surrogate mother) who want to secure the legal relationships between both intended parents and the child early and fast, without waiting the longer period adoptions require; the judgments provide immediate legal ties to the child for the non-biological parent, and also cut off potential legal rights of a sperm donor or surrogate mother. Such judgments have been used for years in California, but are now at risk after a lesbian, Kristine H., sued to have the parentage agreement she entered into with her former partner invalidated. The couple separated two years after the birth of their child.

The second case is that of Elisa Maria B. v. Superior Court. After the couple in this case had children, the relationship ended and Elisa stopped financially supporting twins to whom her former partner had given birth, and her former partner, who was a stay-at-home mom. A trial court ruled that Elisa is a parent to the children because the two women planned the family together and Elisa held the children out as her own and therefore bears financial responsibility for them. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that Elisa should not be considered the other parent to the children and has no obligations to her family.

The third case is K.M. v. E.G. The two women in this case were in a committed relationship and planned a family. K.M. donated eggs to be implanted in E.G. who carried twins to term. They raised the children together for five years before the relationship ended. When the couple separated, E.G. wanted to keep the children from her former partner and is trying to sever any ties K.M. has with the children. A lower court found that since K.M. signed a waiver at the fertility clinic to donate her eggs to E.G., she has relinquished any legal ties to the children born from those eggs. The appeals court upheld that decision.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in about 90 days.

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 23, 2005 5:00 pm ET
(Belfast, Northern Ireland) The number of reported crimes with a homophobic motive have nearly tripled over the past year, the Police Service of Northern Ireland said Monday.
In its annual report on crime trends, the police said the overall rate of reported crimes fell 7.7 percent in the 12-month period ending in March 2005. But crimes motivated by bigotry against minority groups, chiefly Asians and gays, soared.

The report said the number of racially motivated crimes, mostly taunts and assaults, rose to 813 in the 2004-05 period. The figure for 2003-04 was 453, while in 2002-03 it was 226. Crimes involving an anti-gay motive rose to 196, compared with 71 in 2003-04 and 35 in 2002-03.
Police cautioned that the statistical rises reflected, in part, their own increasing focus on investigating such crimes.

The police traditionally concentrated on combating the activities of Northern Ireland's rival paramilitary groups, such as the Irish Republican Army, but most of those groups have been observing cease-fires since the mid-1990s.

Immigration into Northern Ireland has also significantly increased over the past decade, although the most recent census data still records the province's 1.7 million residents as 99 percent white.

posted by Anthony # 6:58 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 23, 2005 5:00 pm ET
(Washington) A new attempt to pass legislation to make crimes of bias against members of the LGBT community a federal crime will be introduced in Congress this week.
The first attempt to pass a hate crime bill failed in 1994 and further attempts have died almost annually since then.

The last attempt failed in October. The measure was contained in a massive defense department bill as add ons. It was stripped out during conference, the procedure where different versions of bills in the House and Senate are "rationalized" for a final vote.
The bill had come under fire from transgender activists because it would not have included protections for transsexuals. The new legislation - for the first time - would cover the transgendered.

"Transgender and gay Americans deserve the same clear protections against hate crimes as other Americans," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "

The bill will be submitted on Thursday. It has bipartisan support - its sponsors include Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R-Fla., John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc..

In April a report released by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs showed violence against gays on the rise.

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 the 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.

According to a 2002 Human Rights Campaign-commissioned poll, two-thirds of voters favor having hate crime laws that cover transgender people.

"The public support is there," said Solmonese. "Congress should act swiftly to ensure local law enforcement agencies have the tools they need from the federal government to combat hate crimes against the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community."

posted by Anthony # 6:56 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 23, 2005 8:30 pm ET
(Washington) A deal was worked out late Monday to avoid a showdown in the Senate over President Bush's stalled judicial nominees.

The pact averts a historic vote dubbed 'the nuclear option' that would have stripped the minority Democrats of their ability to filibuster candidates for federal courts.

Under the deal worked out Monday evening, three of the nominations being held up by Democrats would be allowed to go to the floor for a full vote of the Senate. The remaining four would remain in limbo.

Among the three nominations going forward is that of former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, President Bush's nominee for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

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.
He has been reapproved by the Senate Judiciary Committee but Democrats called him, along with other 9 nominees too extreme for the federal bench.

In April Lambda Legal released a summary of Pryor's record showing 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.
The other two nominations Democrats will allow to come to a vote are those of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Both also have records opposing LGBT civil rights.

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."

"In a Senate that is increasingly polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of 14 senators - seven from each party - to sign the agreement that pledged lawmakers to "mutual trust and confidence."

"The Senate is back in business," echoed Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C..

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., swiftly noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive -- although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.

"We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message ... the abuse of power will not be tolerated."

posted by Anthony # 6:53 AM

May 23, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTA, May 22 (AP) - Representatives of the nation's top psychiatric group approved a statement on Sunday urging legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

If approved by the association's directors in July, the measure would make the group, the American Psychiatric Association, the first major medical organization to take such a stance.
The statement supports same-sex marriage "in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health."

It follows a similar measure by the American Psychological Association last year, three decades after that group removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

The psychiatric association's statement, approved by voice vote on the first day of its weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta, cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members."

The resolution recognizes "that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights," said Dr. Margery Sved, a psychiatrist from Raleigh, N.C., who is a member of the assembly's committee on gay and lesbian issues.

The statement says that the association is addressing same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriages. It takes no position on any religion's views on marriage.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage.

posted by Anthony # 1:32 AM

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

(Asheville, North Carolina) Log Republicans are running a television commercial during the state Republican Party convention here urging North Carolina's GOP to be more inclusive.
The Log Cabin Republicans, which were barred by current GOP chairman Ferrell Blount from setting up a table at last year's convention, planned to air the ad through Sunday on Asheville's cable television system.

"Our commercial has a simple message - the GOP can be an inclusive majority party uniting all North Carolinians or it can be an intolerant party hijacked by the radical right's divisive social agenda," Chris Barron, the group's political director, said Friday at a news conference in Asheville.

Barron's group decided against asking for a table at this year's convention. Instead, they plan to spend from $4,000-$5,000 to air the 30-second ad during the convention's three days.

The ad begins with footage of Ronald Reagan saying that he hoped history "will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears."

"Will we unite on the things that matter most, like supporting our troops and winning the war on terror?" the ad says. "Or will we divide the American family with the politics of intolerance and fear that only lead to hate?

"Our choice is clear," the ad ends. "Hope, not fear."

About a half-dozen delegates at the state convention are Log Cabin members, Barron said.
The state GOP's 2004 platform stated that "homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle either in public education or in public policy."
The platform also endorsed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes "special treatment by law based on nothing other than homosexual behavior or identity."

posted by Anthony # 1:30 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 22, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Rome) A group of same-sex couples staged a symbolic marriage ceremony Saturday only blocks from the Vatican.

The ceremony was performed by a member of the Rome city government. Although the 'marriages' have no legality they served to point out the inequity of Italian law which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Supporters of same-sex marriage held banners proclaiming "Let's free love from religious phobias".

"It's our mother of all battles," said Franco Grillini of the LGBT civil rights group Arcigay. "
The mock nuptials were performed on the Piazza San Lorenzo as curious shoppers looked on. Several applauded but many expressed their displeasure that the demonstration was taking place so close to the Vatican.

The Roman Catholic Church exerts considerable influence on Italian politics. The Church has been involved in fighting same-sex marriage throughout the world.

A 2003 document, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons was prepared by Pope Benedict while he headed the Church's guardian of orthodoxy, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It said that laws safeguarding marriage between man and woman must be promoted and that "in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such."

The Church has funded anti-gay campaigns in Canada and Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal.

Last June, shortly after Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced he would bring in a bill to legalize gay marriage, he was summoned to the Vatican for a severe tongue lashing from Pope John Paul.

posted by Anthony # 1:29 AM

T
by The Associated Press
Posted: May 22, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Austin, Texas) The Texas Senate approved a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage with a 21-8 vote Saturday, sending the issue to voters.

Last month, the House narrowly passed the proposal, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

State law already prohibits same-sex marriages. If approved in a statewide vote in November, Texas would join 14 states that statutorily and constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that allows such marriages, although Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

Opponents have criticized the ban as discrimination against gays and lesbians and warn it could harm heterosexual families if domestic partner benefits, powers of attorney and common law marriage are called into question.

Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine, who sponsored the legislation in the Senate, said none of those scenarios would be affected and would not prevent same-sex couples from adopting children. The House has voted to ban gays from becoming foster parents, but that measure has received little support in the Senate.

Staples rejected arguments the amendment would discriminate against gays and lesbians and the estimated 43,000 same-sex couples in Texas.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, equated the amendment to Jim Crow-era laws that discriminated against blacks.

"At least they had the good sense to never write their bigotry into the state Constitution," said Ellis, who called the amendment "trash."

Staples said he is offended by accusations the amendment is anti-gay.

"There's a distinction between intimate associations and the right to have the government recognize or subsidize your arrangement," Staples said.

posted by Anthony # 1:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 22, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Annapolis, Maryland) After vetoing legislation Friday that would have created a limited domestic partnership registry allowing unmarried couples to serve as each other’s next of kin for crucial healthcare decisions, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich now says he may support a similar bill - as long as it did not have a partner registry.

Ehrlich told a Baltimore radio station on the weekend that the bill also would have to include other forms of dependent relationships such as siblings or parent-child.

"We may very well put in our own bill next year," the Republican governor said during an interview on WBAL. Under questioning Ehrlich said that for his support any future bill could not be limited to same-sex couples - dismissing the term "life partners" as it applies to gay and lesbian households.

Ehrlich said that to support domestic partnerships would only lead to gay marriage.

"I'm going to protect marriage. . . . It's not debatable," he said. Ehrlich said that he had no reservations about vetoing the The Medical Decision Making Act on Friday.

In addition to creating the domestic partnership registry and allowing partners to make medical and funeral decisions for each other the act contained other basic protections which cannot be accomplished through advance directive, power of attorney, or will.

Ehrlich also vetoed a bill that would have eliminated an unfair property tax levied only on unmarried couples.

However, he told WBAL that he would sign two other bills affecting gays and lesbians - one that adds sexual orientation to the state's hate crimes law and another that requires schools report information about bullying, including instances motivated by sexuality.

posted by Anthony # 1:28 AM

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

(Atlanta, Georgia) Representatives of the nation's top psychiatric group approved a statement urging legal recognition of same-sex unions, on Sunday.

The statement, if approved by the association's directors in July, would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance.
The statement, approved on a voice vote, supports same-sex marriage and benefits "in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health."

The psychiatrists approved the statement Sunday, the first day of the APA's weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta.

The vote goes beyond the association's 2000 statement supporting same-sex civil unions and continues a history of recognizing "that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights," said Margery Sved, a Raleigh, N.C., psychiatrist and member of the assembly's committee on gay and lesbian issues.

The position paper cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members." It says the lack of access to health insurance, pension payments, death benefits and other rights for same-sex couples hurts the stability of their relationships and their mental health.

The document clarifies that the association is addressing same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriages. It takes no position on any religion's views on marriage.

A clear majority of the assembly's roughly 250 members present Sunday approved the measure.

Joseph Berger, a psychiatrist from Toronto, Canada, voted against it for what he called political reasons. He cited gay marriage votes in several states last year where voters overwhelmingly sided against the institution.

"It's very unusual for an organization like ours to take on an issue so contrary to where public sentiment is," he said. "It's a little bit like poking your finger in the eye of the public when so much of the public seems to be against it."

Forty states bar same-sex marriages, including some that prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Last year, Georgians voted 3-to-1 for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Some psychiatrists pushed a boycott of this week's conference because of the vote, but most APA members opted to attend, officials said.

Other mental health groups have adopted similar positions on gay marriage in the past year. In July, the American Psychological Association adopted a position statement that said research showed that discrimination based on sexual orientation "detrimentally affects the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals."

posted by Anthony # 1:27 AM

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: May 23, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Rochester, New York) The man considered the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for New York governor has reaffirmed his support for same-sex marriage. But, Eliot Spitzer would not say if elected if he would make it a first term priority.

Instead, Spitzer told a Rochester LGBT audience that the gay community must take the lead in fighting for marriage equality.

"Politicians move very slowly," he told the annual spring dinner of Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's biggest LGBT civil rights organization.. "Only when you lead and block for us do we move in behind you."

The brief speech was greeted with raucous applause and cheers.

Last year, when the mayor of New Paltz performed nearly 30 same-sex weddings even though the couples did not have marriage licenses, Spitzer in a legal opinion said that even though New York does not permit same-sex marriage he believed the legislation would be struck down in court.

Three separate challenges are working their way through the state court system and will eventually wind up in the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.

Polls show that Spitzer is well ahead of incumbent Republican Gov. George Pataki, although Pataki has not said if he will seek a fourth term.

posted by Anthony # 1:26 AM

May 19, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:03 p.m. ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Gay marriage opponents Thursday filed a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and strip domestic partners of most spousal benefits.

The move comes after California lawmakers last week rejected a similar constitutional amendment, and follows a March ruling by a judge in San Francisco who said state laws prohibiting gays from marrying are unconstitutional.

''The bad guys here are the judges and the politicians. The people are frustrated,'' Randy Thomasson, organizer of a group called VoteYesMarriage.com, said outside the state Capitol. ''The people are ready to protect marriage once and for all.''

The amendment's sponsors must submit nearly 600,000 signatures from voters to the California Secretary of State to qualify the measure for the June 2006 ballot.

Under the proposed amendment, same-sex couples still would be allowed to register as domestic partners, but most of the privileges and responsibilities the state has provided for such unions would be taken away. State and local governments, for example, would no longer be allowed to provide health coverage for the partners of their gay employees.

Gay rights supporters described the measure as among the most extreme attempts nationwide to block the gains same-sex couples have made since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage a year ago. If passed, it would make California the 20th state with a constitutional prohibition against gay marriage.

''It's absolutely ahead of the pack in its viciousness,'' said Thalia Zepatos of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Since Jan. 1, domestic partners in California have had all the rights and responsibilities of marriage conferred by the state except the ability to file joint income taxes.

Last week, a federal judge in Nebraska overturned the gay marriage ban adopted in that state in November after ruling its ''broad prescriptions,'' which included limiting public employee benefits to married spouses, went ''far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman.''
------
Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff contributed to this story.

posted by Anthony # 7:35 AM

May 20, 2005
To the Editor:
Re "Judge Voids Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Nebraska" (news article, May 13):
The Nebraska amendment that was struck down took away the power of the state to give any protection - civil unions, domestic partnerships, anything - to same-sex relationships. The court correctly said shutting gay people out of the political process so that government can never protect their relationships in any way violates the federal Constitution's equal protection guarantees.
As the court noted, this case is not about whether or not gay people can marry. This case is about whether or not a state can strip gay people of their right to participate in our democracy.
Matt ColesDirectorLesbian and Gay Rights ProjectAmerican Civil Liberties UnionNew York, May 13, 2005

posted by Anthony # 7:33 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 19, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Madison, Wisconsin) The Wisconsin legislature has hired a law firm associated with Focus on the Family to fight a lawsuit by six lesbian state workers seeking family benefits for their partners.

The Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Legislative Organization voted 6-3 along party lines Wednesday to authorize the Alliance Defense Fund to represent the Legislature.
The suit was filed last month. Married employees of the state of Wisconsin are permitted to include their spouses and children on the state insurance plan.

The lawsuit 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.

Although the state was named as defendant in the suit, the legislature was not.
ADF attorney Glen Lavy said he will ask the court to have the legislature inserted as co-defendants along with the state.

"Domestic partners are not married and should not be treated as if they are," Lavy said.
The state Department of Justice typically defends the state in lawsuits, unless a conflict of interest arises or the case is indefensible. DOJ spokesman Scot Ross said the department is still deciding whether to fight the lawsuit.

The ADF was one of the organizers of last month's Day of Truth which sought to combat the Day of Silence by LGBT students in the nation's schools.

It also represented conservatives who unsuccessfully tried to have California's domestic partner registry declared unconstitutional and is involved in fighting against same-sex marriage suits in the state.

In 2003 it attempted to have LGBT civil rights laws overturned in three states, Arizona, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania.

The ADF was co-founded by James Dobson, chair of Focus on the Family, a longtime foe of LGBT rights.

He wrote on the FOF Web site that tolerance and diversity "are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy."

Earlier this year he declared that SpongeBob and other well-known cartoon characters are crossing "a moral line" by stressing tolerance in a national We Are Family Foundation-sponsored video that was distributed to U.S. schools in March.

Assembly Speaker John Gard (R-Peshtigo), co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization that authorized hiring the ADF to fight the benefits suit, accused Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and Gov. Jim Doyle, both Democrats, of being soft on supporting traditional families.

Gard said that because Doyle included a provision in his budget earlier this year to spend $1 million to provide domestic partner benefits to University of Wisconsin employees he would not fight the suit vigorously. Republicans stripped the domestic partner benefits out of the budget.
"We have no choice but to look for legal help elsewhere," Gard said in a statement.

Democrats accuse Gard and other Republicans of attempting to use the suit as part of a campaign strategy for 2006.

"If bringing in fringe extremists who think cartoon characters are gay is the only way to fight providing health care benefits to Wisconsin's families, it is a sad day in Wisconsin," State Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) said in a statement.

"John Gard is clearly obsessed with gays and lesbians. I know of few people who think so regularly think about sex."

posted by Anthony # 7:29 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: May 19, 2005 6:30 pm ET

(Ottawa) In a vote that had gays and lesbians along with members of Parliament on the edges of their chairs, the government of Liberal leader Paul Martin survived a confidence vote Thursday evening.

The vote, on a budget bill, was won when the Speaker cast a tie breaking vote.

Had the vote failed the government would have fallen and Canada would have been plunged into an election. All bills before Parliament would die - including same-sex marriage legislation.
Until this week it looked as though the government was headed to defeat. Then, on Tuesday, a key member of the opposition Conservatives defected to the Liberals. Belinda Stronach who represents a suburban Toronto riding, blamed Tory Leader Stephen Harper for her defection. She had been at odds with Harper for weeks over his opposition to same-sex marriage and for his push to topple the government.

But, the numbers were still against the Liberals and attention turned to three independents in the Commons. Two voted with the government resulting in the tie that was broken by the speaker.

Had the government fallen, and the gay marriage bill with it, same-sex marriage would not have been affected in those areas of the country where courts have already ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples.

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

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

The bill is currently tied up in committee and not expected to come to a final vote for several weeks.

posted by Anthony # 7:28 AM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: May 19, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(New York City) Lawyers for 13 same-sex couples told a New York court Thursday that state law preventing gay marriage violates the equal protection, due process and free expression provisions of the New York Constitution.

The brief was filed in appeals court by the UCLU on behalf of the couples, many of whom had hoped to be married by New Paltz Mayor Jason West, but were unable to do so after he was forced to stop performing marriages for same-sex couples.

The case is one of three working their way to the state's highest court.

"With New York trial courts now split over the issue of marriage for same-sex couples, we are looking to the state's appellate courts to end the unfairness that lesbian and gay couples face because they are unable to secure the protections of marriage for their families," said James Esseks, Litigation Director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

"Same-sex couples who commit to each other and build a life together shouldn't be treated as legal strangers."

Nine friend-of-the-court briefs, representing a broad range of support for marriage for same-sex couples, were filed this week in support of the ACLU's lawsuit.

A brief signed by 145 religious leaders from throughout the state, including leaders from the Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and Unitarian churches, and conservative and reform temples, pointing out that there is broad support among religions for marriage for same-sex couples and acknowledging that allowing same-sex couples to marry civilly will not force religious groups that do not wish to perform marriages for same-sex couples to do so.

The American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers also filed a brief detailing over two decades of social science research showing that gay people make the same kinds of commitments that straight people make and are just as good parents. Similarly, their children are just as well adjusted.

A brief from the National Organization of Women, the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), the New York Women's Bar Association and other women's groups charges that banning marriage for same-sex couples violates the state's civil rights protections against sex discrimination.

And, a brief by People for the American Way and Asian Equality points out why it's important for the New York courts to decide this key civil rights issue and explaining why full marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is the only way to end the unfairness that gay couples and their children face because they are not allowed to marry.

Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place sometime in October 2005.

In February a New York City judge ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry and ordered the city of New York to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

State Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed the ruling and the case is expected to be heard later this year.

In Ithaca, another judge ruled that same-sex marriage is the sole prerogative of the Legislature not the courts and dismissed a case brought by 25 same-sex couples.

All three cases will likely be rolled into one when the high court hears the issue.

posted by Anthony # 7:27 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 19, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Bakersfield, California) Five students and their parents filed an emergency lawsuit today in Superior Court in Kern County seeking publication in the next two weeks of a series of articles about sexual orientation that was censored by school officials.Student editors, their sources and their parents said they were shocked at the decision by the administration at East High School in Bakersfield to silence them and stop publication of five articles from varying perspectives about gender identity, sexual orientation and students' personal stories.

The East Bakersfield High School students are asking that the articles be published in the final edition of the paper, which is slated for print at the end of the month."I am really surprised and disappointed by our principal's decision to censor us," said Joel Paramo, a senior and editor-in-chief of The Kernal. "I wish we didn't need to file a lawsuit against the school to publish these stories.

We chose to focus on sexual orientation in the paper so that the issues could be talked about in the open, not stuffed back into the closet."The Kernal editors and the students interviewed for the articles first learned they would not be allowed to publish that portion of the newspaper April 29. The East High paper has been selected for several top awards from the local press club and has been allowed to print articles about sexuality in the past.

Additionally, the student editors went to great lengths to ensure their sources and even their sources' parents knew about the articles."The East High students took an important step in promoting tolerance and understanding. They picked up where the school did not venture to go," said Christine P. Sun, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "These students are taking a very courageous step and we take the safety of all students very seriously. The principal's censorship has the exact opposite effect.

The censorship falsely and illegally tells the school community that it is inappropriate for gay and lesbian students, and not heterosexual students, to express themselves at school and that they must hide their identities for the sake of student safety."

Janet Rangel, a senior who was interviewed for the story with her mother, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit."When our principal said the articles on sexual orientation could not be published in The Kernal it made me feel like I'm back where I was - in the closet again, hiding," Rangel said. "I don't want that. It's not ok.

I want to be out. I'm out for a reason. I want people to learn from me and not treat me differently just because I'm gay. I went two steps ahead when I came out and now the school is pushing me back. And, now maybe other students who were thinking about coming out won't."The Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which supports 38 school clubs in central California including GSA clubs at West Bakersfield High, Bakersfield High, South Bakersfield High, Liberty High and Kern Valley High, is also named as a plaintiff in the case."

The school should provide a safe campus for all students, and protect them from harassment and discrimination, not force them into silence," said Carolyn Laub, the group's executive director. "If the principal has direct evidence that there are safety concerns at school, then his first priorities should not be to curtail free speech rights of students but to take appropriate steps to identify and discipline those students who are making threats and to make clear that harassment will not be tolerated."The court did not indicate when it would rule.

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 20, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Sacramento) A conservative group that is fighting same-sex marriage in the courts and at the California legislature Thursday announced it was beginning a drive to collect enough names to have the issue placed on the 2006 ballot.

The "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" was filed with the state Attorney General's Office Thursday by the California Campaign for Children and Families.

The proposed amendment would ban same-sex marriage, void California's domestic partner law, block the state from offering any benefits to gay and lesbian couples and prevent co-adoption.

"We all know that marriage is for a man and a woman," said Randy Thomasson the group's leader. "It's high time that we the people override the judges and politicians who've been relentlessly attacking marriage."

Thomasson said that CCCF intends to gather one million signatures, far more than needed to have an initiative placed on the ballot.

“We were expecting anti-gay extremists to introduce a constitutional amendment about marriage, but what they introduced is without question the most extreme anti-gay, anti-single parent, anti-family amendment ever introduced in the nation," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.

Kors said that the proposed amendment would deny health insurance, hospital visitation, inheritance and medical leave rights to thousands of diverse California families. It would also deny lesbians and gay men the right to be legally recognized co-parents to their children and would leave tens of thousands of children in California with no legally responsible parent.
"If passed, this constitutional amendment would result in children losing health insurance they currently have, hospital visitation being revoked and families being hurt," Kors said. "This would also negatively impact the ability of gay and lesbian parents from adopting or becoming foster parents. We are confident that California voters will reject this offensive attempt to write discrimination into our constitution and harm millions of California families and children."
Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights called the measure "breathtaking in its hostility and sweep,”.

“The amendment is the most extreme and mean-spirited of any previously submitted anywhere else in the nation," Kendell said.

Thomasson said that the CCCF decided to begin the initiative after state Assembly and Senate committees this month rejected a constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, a bill that would allow same-sex marriage is moving forward. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act passed a key committee late last month. The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It 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.

The marriage issue is also before the courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in March that law banning same-sex marriage violate the state Constitution. The issue could reach the California Supreme Court later this year.

posted by Anthony # 7:23 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: May 18, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Brussels) Despite having some of the world's most progressive LGBT laws and tough measures to combat attacks on gays the European Union still has a "serious problem" with homophobia the President of the European Parliament says.

In a speech marking International Day against Homophobia, Josep Borrell said that millions of European gays still face moral discrimination and physical violence.

The International Day against Homophobia marked the 15th anniversary of the removal of homosexuality from an official World Health Organization list of mental disorders.

Borrell said that the best way of combating homophobia in Europe would be for the passage he proposed new EU Constitutional Treaty that includes non-discrimination as one of the major principles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

"Whatever their origin, nationality, social background, religion or sexual orientation, all citizens of the Union have the same rights" said Borrell.

And he warned that Europe has an obligation to help end homophobia worldwide.

"It remains our duty, as an enlarged European Union, to continue the struggle against the moral discrimination and physical violence related to sexual orientation. Such injustices must be overcome in all countries by all means."

In the London, demonstrators marked International Day against Homophobia by protesting outside the Saudi Arabia embassy against the often brutal repression of lesbians and gay men in that country.

"Saudi Arabia's unelected leaders enforce a fundamentalist version of Islam. They impose the death penalty for homosexuality. Several gay Muslims have been beheaded in recent years," said Brett Locke, one of the organizers of the demonstration.

posted by Anthony # 7:10 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 18, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Charlotte, North Carolina) Mecklenburg County, the largest county in North Carolina has passed legislation to add "sexual orientation" to its nondiscrimination policy.

The move only covers county employees but is seen a major step forward in the state despite GOP efforts to derail the measure.

Republican Dan Bishop accused Democrats of using debate on the ordinance to draw attention from a planned tax increase.

"This is to say who we are," he said. "This is what we believe."

GOP commissioner Bill James said the board's action offended God.

Democrats said the measure was an overdue statement of tolerance.

Other North Carolina counties and cities have passed similar anti-discrimination policies, and two counties - Durham and Orange - offer domestic partner benefits.

Charlotte is the largest city in Mecklenburg County. Earlier this month, several dozen members of a conservative Christian group disrupted Pride celebrations in Charlotte.

posted by Anthony # 7:09 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 18, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Washington) A new report weighing the effects of anti-gay measures nationwide against the positive ones has concluded that 2004 wasn't that bad after all.

The report was prepared by the Human Rights Campaign. It shows that on a variety of fronts - from family rights to workplace protections - there has been consistent progress made in obtaining LGBT legal rights, in spite of reports characterizing last November’s election as a ‘backlash.’

“Even with the setbacks at the end of last year, we’ve seen more progress in the past 12 months than we’ve seen in any other year since 1992,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese .
“In spite of the best political maneuverings of those on the ultra-right, there is undeniable progress across the spectrum from family rights to workplace protections to rising polling — hearts, minds and laws are slowly changing for the best.”

The report showed, among other things, that 14 state legislatures defeated anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2004 (compared to the 13 states where these measures passed) and six state legislatures have defeated them already in 2005.

Two states, Connecticut and Maryland, legislatively approved civil unions and domestic partner benefits, respectively. Two other states are considering legislation granting rights to same-sex couples this year so far - California is debating a marriage bill, and Oregon a civil unions measure.

Four state legislatures have passed or strengthened workplace protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees: Colorado , Hawaii , Illinois and Maine.

In addition, polling on election day last November showed that a high-water mark of 60 percent of the country supports either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples, the report says. Similar polling in Massachusetts and New Jersey has shown that a majority of residents in those states favor marriage equality.

“Clearly, we still have a long way to go,” said Solmonese. “But the American people over time always value fairness over discrimination, and we continue to see that dynamic play out all across the country.”

posted by Anthony # 7:09 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 18, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) A proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution to ban same-sex marriage is back on track and will likely be heard by a key committee this week despite attempts to block it.
A hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee had been scheduled for Tuesday, but state Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) an opponent of the measure, used a parliamentary tactic to postpone it.

Wednesday, the chair of the committee, Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) said he hopes to have a hearing on the measure Thursday afternoon. But, only after all other pending business is dealt with.

Thursday is the last day legislation can be considered by the committee this session. If it does not get approval by the committee it cannot advance to a full Senate vote.

"There are a whole lot of bills that need to be passed, so they'll be heard first," Duncan told the Star-Telegram . "This one [the proposed gay marriage ban] is more a philosophical issue."
The proposed amendment won approval by the required two-thirds majority in the House last month. But, opponents in the Senate are trying to secure the 11 votes needed to kill it in the 31-member upper chamber.

They will also attempt to talk it through the clock, meaning extending debate on the issue until time runs out.

Last month, when the amendment was before the House State Affairs Committee, public testimony went on for about 15 hours.

"We are going to stay mobilized and fight this every step of the way," said Heath Riddles, a spokesperson for the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

The clock is also running on a bill that would bar gays and lesbians from being foster parents. The measure has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.

posted by Anthony # 7:08 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: May 17, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Ottawa) Canada's same-sex marriage bill came a little closer to reality Tuesday with the surprise defection of Conservative MP Belinda Stronach to the beleaguered Liberals.

The stunning move could save the government of Prime Minister Paul Martin from defeat Thursday in the House of Commons and allow time to pass the marriage bill.

"It bodes well both for the government and equal marriage legislation," Gilles Marchildon, the executive director of Egale, Canada's national LGBT rights group, told 365Gay.com.

"It proves the old adage that a week in politics is a long time." Only a week ago it appeared the government was headed to certain defeat.
Martin, sitting beside a smiling Stronach at a surprise news conference Tuesday, welcomed his new caucus member and named her human resources minister. He also said she will be in charge of democratic renewal.

The development boosts the government's chance of surviving a crucial confidence motion scheduled for Thursday. It is also a big blow to the Conservatives.

Stronach, who represents a suburban Toronto riding, blamed Tory Leader Stephen Harper for her defection. She had been at odds with Harper for weeks over his opposition to same-sex marriage and for pushing to topple the government.

"I tried to the very best of my ability to play a constructive role in the Conservative party to advance issues that really matter to Canadians in cities, to women, to young people, to many Ontarians," Stronach told reporters.

``But I regret to say that I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is.''

Her defection will not change the outcome of the marriage bill - Stronach was already committed to support it, but by crossing the aisle it lowers the chances the government will be swept from office before the bill can come to a final vote. All eyes are now on independent MP Chuck Cadman. His vote could well be the determining factor in the government's survival and he won't say how he intends to vote on Thursday.

If the government falls all legislation before Parliament would die.

Meanwhile, the marriage bill is tied up in committee. Conservative MP Vic Toews has launched a filibuster in the committee. Toews is demanding that Calgary Catholic Bishop Fred Henry, a longtime foe of same-sex marriage, be flown to Ottawa to testify.

Toews saysd he wants Henry to explain threats he claims to have received from a Revenue Canada official over statements he made against same-sex marriage, as well as government denials that threats had been made.

"It's obvious that the Conservatives have a deliberate strategy of delay and obstruction," Alex Munter, spokesperson for Canadians for Equal Marriage told 365Gay.com.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in 7 of Canada's 10 provinces and one of the three territories. Last month a suit to gain marriage rights was filed by gay couples in an 8th province.
The legalization before Parliament would extend that to the rest of Canada. If the government falls and the legislation dies or is defeated it would not change the right of gays to marry in those areas where courts have ruled.

posted by Anthony # 7:35 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 17, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Atlanta) The nation's leading psychiatric group will take up the issue of gay marriage at its annual conference this weekend as its members debate whether to support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions.

The American Psychiatry Association's assembly will consider a proposal at its annual meeting in Atlanta on Sunday to amend the group's official position statement on gay marriage.

The new proposal goes beyond its 2000 statement supporting same-sex civil unions by saying that legal the recognition of such unions would ensure that legal rights afforded to heterosexual civil unions - such as health insurance, pension payments and death benefits - would be guaranteed for same-sex couples.

"This is an important issue for the mental health of gay and lesbian persons as well as ... a civil rights issue in terms of preventing discrimination," said Dr. Francis Lu, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of California-San Francisco who has led the association's committee studying the issue.

The committee approved the proposal in November. If the association's assembly votes this weekend to support it, the proposal will then go before the group's board of trustees for final approval, likely in July.

"We're not talking about religious marriage but civil marriage," Lu said. "There should be no discrimination in front of the state."

The assembly's discussion will take place in a state where voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage six months ago.

Georgia's ban prompted an e-mail campaign by some psychiatrists to boycott the association's meeting in Atlanta but most members felt "it was very important for us to be present at the meeting," said Dr. Ellen Haller, president of the Northern California Psychiatric Society.
Other medical groups have adopted similar positions on gay marriage in the past year. In July, the American Psychological Association adopted a position statement that said research showed that discrimination based on sexual orientation "detrimentally affects the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals." It also said no scientific evidence exists to justify denying civil marriage rights as well as parenting rights for same-sex couples.

"We do see as a part of our mission to bring science, bring psychological research, to relevant public policy issues," said Rhea Faberman, spokeswoman for the psychological association.
Forty states bar same-sex marriages, including some that prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy, including sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

A federal judge last week struck down Nebraska's 5-year-old ban on gay marriage, ruling that the measure interfered with the rights of gay couples and people in a host of other living arrangements, including foster parents and adopted children.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

posted by Anthony # 7:33 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 17, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The champagne corks popped, the wedding cakes were cut, and Massachusetts celebrated the first anniversary of the first legal same-sex marriages in the country on Tuesday.

Thousands of gay and lesbian couples stood on the steps in front of the State House for an official photograph marking the day. Tuesday was bleak and cold, but that did not camp the spirit.
Among those having their picture taken were Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang. They held a sign reading "Thank you Massachusetts for one year of equality."

In the 12 months since the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that same it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry went into effect some 6,200 gay and lesbian couples have tied the knot in cities and towns across the state.

Across the Charles River in Cambridge, Mayor Michael Sullivan hosted a party for gay couples who were married in the city that is home to Harvard and MIT.

Cambridge was the scene of the very first gay wedding in the state. Last year Sullivan kept City Hall open all night. Couples began lining up early in the evening the day before. At exactly midnight Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, entered the history books as the first same-sex couple in America to legally apply for a marriage license.

In Northampton, J.M. Sorrell, a lesbian justice of the peace who has married about 100 gay couples, sat at a table at City Hall offering sparkling cider, cookies and bottled water to people as they walked into city hall, wishing "Happy Anniversary" to gay couples she recognized.

The scene there though was more subdued than in Boston or Cambridge."I was hoping people would be coming through the doors with flowers for the clerks to thank them for all their help in the past year," Sorrell said. "But it hasn't happened yet."

One of the couples who did stop by were Johanna Hammer, 31, and her wife, Rebecca Rogouin, 39. Hammer looked back at her wedding and said that she remembers being surprised at how monumental the feeling was.

"We weren't expecting the day to be as powerful as it was," Hammer said. "But it wound up being a really, really moving day."

Sue Hyde, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Field Organizer for Massachusetts said the impact of same-sex marriage has been liberating for straights as well as gays.

"As we said from the moment the Goodridge decision was handed down, the single most important factor in persuading people that marriage equality would be good for all of us would be the marriages of same-sex couples," said Hyde.

"If an average of 25 people witnessed the weddings of the 6,000 couples who married, then 150,000 people participated in and observed the momentous event of a marriage between two people of the same sex. Almost all of them shared that experience with a co-worker, a family member, or a neighbor, not only because it is a lovely experience to attend a wedding, but also because in Massachusetts witnessing a gay wedding is an historic occasion and something people share with pride of place."

Same-sex marriage has also been good for business in Massachusetts.
About 15 percent of all the gay couples who married in the state over the past year tied the knot in Provincetown.

Wedding and party planners, caterers and photographers, guesthouse and restaurant owners all have found revenues up over the past year according to the town's tourism director, Patricia Fitzpatrick.

''I think that on a scale of one to 10, it came in at about a seven,'' Fitzpatrick said.
But, looming on the horizon is a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The measure was given preliminary approval last year but needs to pass again in the Convention during this session of the Legislature in order to go to voters. The earliest it could be placed on the ballot would be 2006.

Last March when the proposed amendment passed the first phase, it did so by only a handful of votes and after heated debate. Many Democrats opposed the measure and many Republicans who object to gay marriage voted against it because it would permit civil unions.
A joint session of the House and Senate will be held on Aug. 24.

On the weekend, state Democrats at their annual convention, endorsed a party platform that includes support for same-sex marriage.

At the same time, a new national poll shows that support is growing for same-sex unions.
On Sunday, the Boston Globe released a new poll that approval of same-sex marriage by Americans is gaining support but still falls far short of a majority.

Thirty-seven-percent of those surveyed in the national poll said they support gay marriage while an additional 11 percent said they did not care either way. Fifty percent of those surveyed said that same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

The poll, taken by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, also found that half of Americans believe gay marriages from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages are legal, should not be recognized in their state. Forty-six percent said they should be recognized.

posted by Anthony # 7:32 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 17, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Minneapolis, Minnesota) A Minneapolis church that defied its bishop and allowed gays and lesbians wearing rainbow sashes communion last Sunday will not be reprimanded.
Archbishop Harry Flynn had instructed priests in the diocese not to give communion to members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance on Pentecost Sunday.

"I am asking you to remove your sashes before you receive Holy Communion," Flynn wrote in a letter to the Alliance earlier this month. "I ask you to observe this sign of respect for the Eucharist not only in the Cathedral but in all our parishes. No one wearing the sash will be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament."

A group of about 100 gay Roman Catholics and their supporters were denied Holy Communion at Pentecost Mass at the Cathedral of St. Paul on Sunday.

But, at St. Stephen's Catholic Church in south Minneapolis a group of Rainbow Sash members were given the sacrament.

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said he had asked the archbishop if there would be repercussions for churches that granted communion to sash-wearing congregants. Flynn's reply was no, McGrath said.

The Rainbow Sash Alliance has been taking Communion on Pentecost at the Cathedral for the past four years, but Flynn changed the policy this year, under pressure from the Vatican.
The Rainbow Sash movement is an international organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics and their families and friends.

posted by Anthony # 7:32 AM

by Mark Levy 365Gay.com Cape Town, South Africa Bureau
Posted: May 17, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Johannesburg) South Africa's Constitutional Court was told Tuesday that barring same-sex couples from marrying is discrimination.

The court was hearing a legal challenge brought by Marie Fourie and Cecilia Bonthuys, who have been partners since 1994 but are unable to marry.

Last year the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman discriminated unfairly against same-sex couples, and that common law should be developed to take this into account.

The government is fighting the ruling. Today, the Department of Home Affairs argued that the appeal court violated the rule of the separation of powers by usurping Parliament's power by making law.

"Same-sex partnerships are a relatively new phenomena," said the Department of Home Affairs' advocate Marumo Moerane, sparking laughter in the packed gallery. He then said that, "We don't know whether single-sex relationships involve the idea of mutual support."
Justice Mohamed Yacoob suggested that the government's case was inconsequential, telling Moerane the fact remains that because marriage has existed since "time immemorial" discrimination has also existed since time immemorial.

John Smyth, of the conservative group Doctors For Life which had been granted intervenor status, told the court that homosexuality is against the Bible and so same-sex marriages should not be allowed.

"There is no escaping the fact that in both testaments homosexual acts are condemned in very strong language," said Smyth.

He also asserted that legalized same-sex unions would cause "violence to the mind and spirit" of deeply religious people and would discriminate against them.Judge Albie Sachs at that point interjected to say it would be a "worrying day" if judges were asked to give meaning to religious texts.

The judges gave no indication when they might issue a ruling.

Outside the court in Johannesburg a small group of protesters sang "We shall overcome".

posted by Anthony # 7:31 AM

by Matt Johns 365Gay.com Los Angeles Bureau
Posted: May 17, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Los Angeles, California) Same-sex marriage would have a significant positive impact on California ’s state budget - a potential gain of up to $30 million each year - according to a new study.

It was released on the eve of a vote by the California State Assembly Appropriations Committee on the fiscal impact of AB 19, a bill that extends marriage to same-sex couples in California.
The study was prepared by the Williams Project , a think tank at UCLA School of Law, and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Savings in means-tested public benefits programs and increases in sales tax revenues from tourism and same-sex wedding ceremonies account for the windfall for the California budget. These gains would be partially offset by a decrease in income tax revenues, resulting in a net impact of up to $30 million each year for the State.

"This study re-confirms the findings of at least nine studies that have been done during the past decade," said Brad Sears, co-author of the study and executive director of UCLA School of Law's Williams Project .

The study also predicts that California would benefit from a boom in tourism if it extends marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

When San Francisco allowed couples to marry for one month last year, they flew in from 46 states and 8 countries.

The study concludes that if same-sex marriage were permanently offered, each year California would benefit from over $100 million in increased business revenues, generating over $7 million in sales tax revenues for the State. By comparison, Forbes magazine has estimated that if same-sex marriage were legalized across the U.S. , gay weddings would generate $16.8 billion in spending during the first several years.

In addition to a series of studies by the Williams Project and IGLSS, similar analyses have been done by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Comptroller of New York, the Office of Legislative Research of the Connecticut General Assembly, and the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission. "All of these studies have shown that recognizing the rights of same-sex couples will have a positive impact on federal or state budgets" Sears said.

AB 19, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, passed a key committee late last month. The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It 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.

posted by Anthony # 7:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 17, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Providence, Rhode Island) In this corner a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage and in the other corner one that would bar gay marriage.

That was the scene Tuesday at the Rhode Island legislature. The Senate Judiciary Committee began looking at legislation that would prohibit same-sex marriage and prevent the state or any of its agencies from recognizing such unions performed in other states.

Meanwhile, tomorrow in the House Judiciary Committee a bill to legalize same-sex marriage will getting its first airing.

The Senate committee was packed as people lined up to speak for and against the measure. Many of those same people will return Wednesday for the House committee.

Gay marriage bills have died in legislative committees for years, often without hearings.
House Speaker William Murphy, and Senate President Joseph Montalbano, both Democrats, and Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican, all oppose gay marriage.

Rhode Island began taking up the issue of same-sex marriage on the same day as gay couples in Massachusetts were celebrating the first anniversary of legalized same-sex marriage in that state.

Connecticut recently approved marriage-like civil unions, but barred same-sex couples from marrying.

posted by Anthony # 7:28 AM

By KEN MAGUIRE, Associated Press WriterSun May 15, 5:47 PM ET

Matt Laderer figured it was the kind of stuff straight people talk about with their moms and dads: When is the right time to get married? How do you pop the question?

"I realized, I don't know that information," the 24-year-old mechanical engineer said on a recent night out with his boyfriend at Club Cafe, a gay bar in Boston's South End. "I don't know when to buy the ring."

When Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage one year ago, it was hailed by gays and lesbians as a huge milestone in their struggle for acceptance. But it also added a new dimension to the gay dating scene — the pressure to get married.

There has always been the option of civil commitment ceremonies, but the opportunity to get married prompted thousands of couples to exchange vows in the days and weeks after it became legal on May 17 last year. And with lawmakers preparing for a second round of debate on a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, the window of opportunity might not be open forever.

The ramifications hit Mark Puleo within minutes of the first gay marriage licenses being issued. He stood on the steps of Cambridge City Hall that night with his then-boyfriend, watching as other couples walked inside at the stroke of midnight to get their licenses.

Then he realized: He might be proposed to.

"That was weird for me, very weird," the 29-year-old said. "I did fear that in the spirit of the moment and all the excitement of the history that I could find myself being asked that question."

He wasn't. That relationship ended and Puleo is now back in the dating game.

On lesbian night at Toast Lounge in Somerville, 27-year-old Sukari Neblett took a break from dancing and socializing to talk about what she's really here for: a wife.

"I have no problem with proposing," said Neblett, a tour consultant. "I don't have any problems with being proposed to. I guess it depends on whoever does it first, when the time is right."
Neblett hopes that time comes soon.

"At this stage of my life, I'm not going to date someone (if) it's not going to go anywhere," she said. "I'm still young, but three years from now I'm going to be 30. I want kids."

At a nearby booth, Noa Simons relaxed with her fiancee, Anne Conger, and their friend Natasha Williams, who is single. Simons and Conger got engaged two years ago, but the word has new meaning today.

"There is a shift happening in terms of language, customs, buying rings, financing rings," said Simons, 25. "The (homosexual) community is adopting the language of the heterosexual community."

Williams, a 25-year-old graduate student, agreed.

"Before, I never heard lesbians talk about financing a ring," she said.

Kristen Porter has been organizing lesbian nights at area bars for seven years. She said gay marriage has forced some couples to take their relationships more seriously.

"Prior to gay marriage, women often referred to each other as 'my wife,'" the 35-year-old said. "Now, if you say 'my wife,' people say 'Oh, you got married.' It's bringing a little bit more realism to relationships."

To the women at Toast, statistics from the first year of gay marriage bear out a long-held stereotype about lesbians: They jump into committed relationships faster than men. Of the more than 6,000 same-sex marriages conducted, more than two-thirds have been female couples.

For Porter and others, it calls to mind a well-worn joke in the gay community:

Question: What does a gay man bring to a second date?

Answer: What second date?

Question: What does a lesbian bring to a second date?

Answer: A U-Haul.

"In the entertainment industry, it's hard to keep lesbian nights going," Porter said. "We provide a place for women to meet each other. Once they meet each other they stop going out. It's very different with gay men."

Anthony Bures, founder of the national online gay dating service RequestADate.com, said he's noticed a change in personal ads by some of his Massachusetts clients.

"The word 'marriage' is popping up a lot more," he said.

A recent posting from a 36-year-old gay Boston man: "I consider myself husband material, and would love the opportunity to share the true good things life has to offer."

Back at Club Cafe, Laderer and his boyfriend of one year, 24-year-old Matt Mazer, see no reason to rush.

"Maybe in three years it might be different," said Laderer.

Added Mazer: "On a first date, a heterosexual couple wouldn't say, 'So, wanna marry me?'"

posted by Anthony # 5:51 PM

By Adrian Walker, Boston Globe Columnist May 16, 2005
The first anniversary of gay marriage in Massachusetts is suddenly upon us tomorrow. History has seldom felt so anticlimactic.

Some 6,000 couples have said their ''I do's," and despite all the fire-and-brimstone predictions, the state is still here. The nuclear family has not fallen apart.

The news is how little news there really has been.

The Supreme Judicial Court took the right course 18 months ago in declaring that equality is absolute, not relative, and that rights have to apply to all. But even in liberal Massachusetts, not everyone cheered. Some believed the judges -- especially Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall -- had written law from the bench. Others believed the action had been taken in haste, or that such a watershed 4-to-3 decision should be left to voters, not to one of seven judges.

Emotions were even higher when the issue of gay marriage moved to Beacon Hill, where lawmakers debated an amendment to ban gay marriage in place of civil unions. The sight of children holding antigay signs on Beacon Street and praying in the State House is not one I'll forget anytime soon. And yes, the media also greeted it with a fervor usually reserved for invasions of countries said to be harboring weapons of mass destruction. Gay Marriage was History, and no effort was spared in recording it.

Not surprisingly, clergy were among the most vociferous of opponents, charging that gay marriage was part of a larger erosion of values. Most African-American ministers appeared unswayed by the notion that gay marriage was a civil rights issue. After I wrote a column praising state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and Representative Marie P. St. Fleur for supporting gay marriage, more than one minister informed me that it was the clergy who were truly representative of the black community, while the lawmakers, and the media, were shamefully out of touch.

Something happened though, once people actually started getting married. Something truly wondrous. Almost everyone calmed down. This did not occur immediately. But by late summer, conversation about it seemed to be subsiding. Couples got married and went on with their lives. It got hard to remember what all the fuss was about.

Across the country, voters remain deeply ambivalent, and gay marriage loses whenever it's put to a popular vote. But those votes have all been conducted in places where gay marriages aren't actually taking place, where the popular image of the havoc it will wreak hasn't yet been trumped by boring, everyday reality.

Even in Massachusetts, the battle over gay marriage isn't officially over. But it is clearly on the wane. The Legislature will vote, again, on whether to place an antigay marriage amendment on the ballot for 2006. But in fact, Governor Mitt Romney seems to be carrying the torch for a ban with very little support. The public has moved on. Lawmakers are eager to do the same.
There is plenty of precedent for this. Every major civil rights advance seemed cataclysmic in its time. Yet even the hardest fought of those battles recede in time. Women vote, blacks in the South vote -- and now, in Massachusetts at least, men marry men and women marry women. Always, states survive.

To be sure, the opponents of gay marriage have plenty of ammunition left, and many other states in which to wage their battles. Some say gay marriage will be commonplace across the country in a few years, and it will be hard to remember why it was ever controversial. I'm not sure that's true, knowing how much more deeply entrenched the opposition is, especially in the South.

Then again, two years ago, few would have guessed that this anniversary would have arrived so quickly. Gradually other states, such as Connecticut and maybe California, will brave the storm of gay marriage. May they also know the calm that soon follows it, the acceptance of justice at last being served.

Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.

posted by Anthony # 5:49 PM

May 17, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:59 a.m. ET
PHOENIX (AP) -- A campaign is under way to put a proposed constitutional amendment before voters next year that would prohibit same-sex marriages and bar state and local governments from giving legal status to any unmarried couple.

Supporters on Monday filed their initiative with the Secretary of State's Office and scheduled news conferences in three cities Tuesday -- the one-year anniversary of Massachusetts' start of permitting same-sex marriages. They need to collect the signatures of 183,917 registered voters.

Supporters of the proposed amendment, including officials of the Scottsdale-based Center for Arizona Policy, declined to comment on it before the news conferences.

However, the group said last week the initiative would give Arizona voters a historic opportunity to decide ''whether to preserve the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or leave it open to being changed by a few activist judges.''

The drive puts Arizona among at least a dozen states considering 2006 ballot measures on the marriage issue. All 11 states with constitutional bans on the ballot in November approved them.
According to the Washington-based Family Research Council, 43 states have laws barring recognition of same-sex marriages, including 17 with constitutional language.

Even though Arizona law already outlaws same-sex unions, gay marriage opponents say more is needed to protect the sanctity of families by preventing judges from overturning the prohibition.
A critic of the measure said opponents can finalize plans for a counter-campaign now that wording of the expected initiative has been released.

Keith Susman, co-chair of the political and legislative affairs committee of the Arizona Human Rights Fund, said the provision prohibiting government recognition of the legal status of unmarried couples would affect domestic partner benefits granted to employees of Phoenix, Tucson and other local governments.

''It's a mean-spirited measure to take away people's rights that they currently have,'' Susman said. ''There are gay families that are dependent on these benefits, families with children. They are really going to be harmed by it.''

Recent surveys found Arizona voters to be sharply divided on whether to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

Last month, the Republican-led Legislature approved a measure urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:06 AM

May 17, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:11 a.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- A year after same-sex couples started taking their first-in-the-nation wedding vows in Massachusetts, a constitutional amendment designed to undo gay marriage is facing an uncertain future.

Both supporters and opponents of gay marriage, for very different reasons, are hoping to defeat the amendment that was seen as a compromise when it got preliminary legislative approval a year ago.

The proposal to ban gay marriage while allowing civil unions was seen by supporters as a way to preserve some rights for same-sex couples, and by many opponents as a chance to persuade the state Supreme Judicial Court to temporarily stop gay marriage until voters had a say.
Since then the political landscape has shifted, with more support in the Legislature for gay marriage and a lack of widespread opposition by voters as thousands of couples have married.
At the same time, opponents of gay marriage are considering pulling their support for the compromise to work toward a ban of both same-sex marriages and civil unions.

If the amendment fails during a planned second round of voting in the fall, gay marriage will remain legal in Massachusetts.

Sen. Stephen Buoniconti is one of a handful of lawmakers who supported the compromise, which passed 105-92, now reconsidering his vote.

Buoniconti said he's particularly concerned about creating a legal limbo for the thousands of gay couples who have already married.

''That wasn't so much of a question the first time around,'' said Buoniconti, a Democrat.
And, he said, during his door-to-door Senate campaign last year, only one person brought up gay marriage. ''The sky hasn't fallen. There's a new landscape. The world has changed.''
One of the sponsors of the compromise amendment, Republican Sen. Brian Lees, also said he's not ruling out a change of heart.

''More than likely I will support it, but I want to keep an open mind on it,'' Lees said. ''With a year's hindsight you've got to take a second look and I will do that. I am continuing to hear from both sides.''

Supporters of traditional marriage are considering gathering voter signatures for a ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage and civil unions, said Ron Crews, head of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

They would need to gather more than 68,000 signatures, but would face a lower threshold of legislative support -- 51 lawmakers instead of 101 -- to get it on the ballot. The earliest it could go before voters is 2008.

''We are more concerned with protecting marriage in the long run even if it takes a longer time,'' Crews said.

The Roman Catholic Church also opposes both gay marriage and civil unions.

Last year's compromise came during Sen. John Kerry's unsuccessful campaign for president, and reflected the Massachusetts Democrat's position opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions.

A major shift in the Legislature came with the retirement of former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Democrat and an opponent of gay marriage. Finneran's replacement, Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, also a Democrat, supports gay marriage. A spokeswoman for DiMasi said he believes many House members are taking a fresh look at the amendment.

Earlier this year, three Democrats who support gay marriage won seats in the Massachusetts House during a special election.

But supporters of gay marriage also said they don't think they have the votes to kill the compromise language, which they worry could still get on the ballot.

They said they fear many lawmakers reconsidering their votes may back out at the last minute to avoid being accused of flip-flopping.

''This is nip and tuck right now and we could easily lose. We are very nervous,'' said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

Others, however, said they feel most people in the state have adjusted to the notion of same-sex marriage and want lawmakers to move on to more pressing matters like education and health care.

''I think the extremists on the right desperately want to keep this alive,'' said Democratic state Rep. Liz Malia. ''I kind of think the issue has run out of gas and I hope that's true.''

posted by Anthony # 7:05 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 16, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) Gay marriage opponents filed a petition Monday for a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw same-sex unions.Voters will decide the issue if organizers gather the more than 183-thousand signatures needed to put the proposal on the 2006 ballot.

Eleven states approved such constitutional bans in November.

Even though state law already outlaws same-sex unions, gay marriage opponents say further action needed "to protect the sanctity of families" by preventing judges from overturning the prohibition.

Last month, the Legislature passed a measure urging Congress to pass an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage.

The nonbinding measure's passage came nearly a year after a similar proposal failed.

posted by Anthony # 7:04 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 16, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The first anniversary is traditionally called the paper anniversary - you have to be married 25 years to get silver, and 50 to get to be golden. But, for about 6,200 Massachusetts same-sex couples the paper this year is golden - their marriage licenses.
On May 17, 2004 same-sex marriage became legal in the state and shortly after midnight the city of Cambridge, across the river from Boston, became the first community in America to issue marriage license forms to same-sex couples.

Cambridge Mayor Michael Sullivan threw open the doors of city hall about 10 p.m. the night before and invited dozens of same-sex couples into the building for a celebration to countdown the minutes until midnight.

There was a three-tiered wedding cake, pastries, and to wash it down, sparkling cider and coffee.

Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, entered the history books as the first same-sex couple in America to legally apply for a marriage license.

Hams and Shepherd have been invited back to Cambridge city hall to celebrate their first anniversary, along with hundreds of other gay and lesbian couples.

Tuesday Sullivan will roll out another ceremonial cake and unveil a photo exhibit; and a video of the historic celebration last year.

"The historic nature of that moment was not lost on our community," said Sullivan. "Nor was the importance of the rights and recognition that were finally granted to these families."
Similar parties are being held in other communities throughout the state.

A mass anniversary photograph of gay and lesbian couples, their families, friends and supporters will be snapped at 3:30 p.m. on the steps of the Boston Common leading to the State House. And, in the evening, the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts, MassEquality and GLAD will hold a First Anniversary Party for same-sex couples at the Fairmont Copley Hotel.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to gay marriage in Massachusetts, carry copies of their license everywhere they go, in case they have to prove in an emergency that they are legally wed.

When their daughter Annie was born nine years ago, complications put Annie and Julie Goodridge on different floors of the same hospital, and Hillary had no legal right to see either of them.

A month after their wedding, another visit to the same hospital showed how things had changed. When one of Annie's toys got stuck in a tree, Hillary tried to dislodge it by throwing a broom, and was hit in the face with the handle.

When a nurse at the hospital asked the bleeding Hillary if she was married, she replied yes. When asked if her husband was in the waiting room, Hillary corrected him: "I said, `SHE is in the waiting room.'"

"He smiled and said, `Of course. Would she like to come in?'" recalled Hillary, 49. "And then I knew I wouldn't have to worry."

But, looming on the horizon is a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The measure was given preliminary approval last year but needs to pass again in the Convention during this session of the Legislature in order to go to voters. The earliest it could be placed on the ballot would be 2006.

Last March when the proposed amendment passed the first phase, it did so by only a handful of votes and after heated debate. Many Democrats opposed the measure and many Republicans who object to gay marriage voted against it because it would permit civil unions.
A joint session of the House and Senate will be held on Aug. 24.

In a bid to divide gay marriage foes at the State House openly gay state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios has proposed a second possible amendment - one that would ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

On the weekend, state Democrats at their annual convention, endorsed a party platform that includes support for same-sex marriage.

At the same time, a new national poll shows that support is growing for same-sex unions.
On Sunday, the Boston Globe released a new poll that approval of same-sex marriage by Americans is gaining support but still falls far short of a majority.

Thirty-seven-percent of those surveyed in the national poll said they support gay marriage while an additional 11 percent said they did not care either way. Fifty percent of those surveyed said that same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

The poll, taken by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, also found that half of Americans believe gay marriages from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages are legal, should not be recognized in their state. Forty-six percent said they should be recognized.

For the time being, only residents of Massachusetts can marry. But, a legal challenge to that is being waged in the courts and a decision could come at any time.

posted by Anthony # 7:03 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 17, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Washington) Catholic colleges and universities that are giving honorary degrees and inviting pro-gay and pro-women's rights advocates to speak are under attack from a conservative Catholic group.

The Cardinal Newman Society which is dedicated to a strict adherence to Catholicism says that a liberal attitude has permeated many of the country's 219 Catholic colleges and universities.
“We are blowing the whistle on any Catholic college or university that blatantly disrespects the bishops by defying their clear command and teaching,” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, in a statement.

“After decades of scandal at secularizing colleges, last June the bishops drew a line in the sand. No college that crosses that line deserves the label ‘Catholic’ or the support of the faithful—most especially monetary support.”

The society has targeted 16 schools and six in particular for honoring people the Society says are "pro-homosexual".

California Secretary for Education and former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan delivered the commencement address and received an honorary degree on Saturday at the Dominican University of California.

While running for California governor in 2002 Riordan said he was “open to discussion” of Vermont-style civil unions and advocated expanding benefits under California’s domestic partners law. In 2000 Riordan opposed Proposition 22, a statewide initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which was overwhelmingly approved by California voters.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer delivered the commencement address on May 15 at the Loyola Marymount University law school in Los Angeles.

Lockyer "has indicated that he supports homosexual marriage and has only defended California’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman because it is his duty," the Society said in a statement.

Theologian Sr. Margaret Farley will deliver the commencement address on May 21 at Saint Xavier University in Illinois.

Farley, who teaches Christian ethics at Yale University Divinity School, is an outspoken dissenter from traditional Catholic teaching on sexual morality and human life.

"Farley has also attacked Catholic teaching on sexual ethics, asserting that homosexuality is not disordered, homosexual and heterosexual relations that are not open to procreation can be ethical, and homosexual marriage should be allowed," the Society says. "She has misled Catholics and caused scandal by claiming support for her arguments within Catholic teaching despite her clear dissent from the Vatican and the bishops."

Former Washington Gov. Gary Locke will deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree on June 13 at Seattle University in Washington.

Locke came under fire because " He directed the Public Employee Benefits Board to provide benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, giving homosexuals effective parity with married couples."

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is also on the Society's hit list.

Giuliani will deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree on May 20 at Loyola College in Maryland.

"As mayor of New York and later as a U.S. Senate candidate, Giuliani was very public about his support for abortion rights and special rights for homosexuals."

Calling his views "radical" the Society condemned Loyola because Giuliani has "endorsed domestic partnerships and took steps to extend special benefits to gay and lesbian couples employed by New York City."

The College of New Rochelle in New York was also condemned for announcing it would give an honorary degreed to actress Cicely Tyson on May 26.

Tyson was criticized for a 2002 speech in which she said, “Sex is a part of life. It’s just like eating or drinking, and it shouldn’t be treated any differently.”

posted by Anthony # 7:02 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 16, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Madison, Wisconsin) Opposition is growing to a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

Now, one of the state's biggest churches is speaking out against the measure which would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also prohibit civil unions.

The South-Central Wisconsin Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has voted to oppose the amendment.

The Synod includes 13 counties and 150 congregations.

The vote was taken at its annual meeting. About 450 representatives of the various congregations attended, and the resolution was approved by a voice vote.

"The first part of the amendment, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, we felt was redundant. It's already state law," David Berggren, secretary of the Synod Council told the Capital Times.

"The second part was the real sticking point," he said. "It says that 'a legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage shall not be recognized in this state.'"

In March 2004, the Wisconsin Legislature passed the first phase of getting the proposed amendment on the ballot. The wording must be passed a second time in this session of the Legislature. It is expected that it will be put to a vote in the fall where it is likely to pass the Assembly. Passage in the Senate may be more difficult.

Action Wisconsin says it only needs to sway five votes to defeat the measure. However, if it passes both house the proposed amendment would go to voters in November 2006.

posted by Anthony # 7:01 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 16, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) Legislation that would ban same-sex marriage hit a stumbling block Monday when a senator delayed committee debate on the issue for at least two days.

The Senate State Affairs Committee was set to hold a public hearing Monday and likely vote to send the measure to the full Senate for debate as early as Wednesday.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, slowed progress of the measure by "tagging" it. The tag means the legislation can't be heard in committee for at least two days. The public hearing was rescheduled for Thursday, so the soonest the measure could reach the Senate floor would be Saturday.

"I have grave reservations about this bill," Ellis said, adding that the Legislature has many more pressing issues in the final two weeks of the session, including hammering out House and Senate differences in the state budget and school funding reform.

Texas law already prohibits same-sex marriages. The bill aims to safeguard that law from judicial challenges by amending the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The proposed change, sponsored by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, and Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine, won approval in the House with a vote of 101-29 last month. The measure requires 100 of 150 votes in the House and 21 of 31 votes in the Senate as well as approval from a majority of Texas voters.

With the legislative session winding down and multiple deadlines looming, any delay now decreases a measure's chance for passage. But proponents of the ban said the delay is only a minor setback, and they will continue pressing to get the measure on the November ballot.
Ellis said he tagged the bill because it wasn't on the committee agenda early enough to allow interested Texans to get to Austin and participate in the debate. The bill was added to the agenda for the 8 a.m. Monday meeting on Saturday.

"Our constitution is something we ought to be very careful about tinkering with," Ellis said.
Ellis' maneuver will force senators to decide whether to bring up the bill, which would likely see many hours of debate and result in the sacrifice of other pieces of legislation.

Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said the Senate is united behind the belief marriage is between a man and a woman and that he expects the legislation to pass in the Senate.

Staples shared Dewhurst's optimism.

"I believe we'll be able to work through it," Staples said. "Protecting the institution of marriage is important for our state."

Chisum said he was disappointed with the delay tactic.

"If there are any more hiccups in the bill, it certainly could be a death blow," he said.

Despite short notice for the hearing Monday, supporters and opponents of the legislation said they were prepared to talk about the bill.

"We were ready then, and we'll be ready until it happens," said Heath Riddles, spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute gave the only testimony in favor of the same-sex marriage ban during the House public hearing in April. Nearly 90 people testified against the measure.

He said he was ready and waiting to testify after a 6 a.m. flight from Dallas on Monday, and others traveled several hours to make sure more voices favoring the ban would be heard this time. While they were disappointed with the delay, Shackelford said it only galvanized their efforts to speak out.

posted by Anthony # 7:00 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 16, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(New York City) The American Civil Liberties Union announced plans on Monday to launch a national Marriage Campaign to persuade Americans that it is unfair to deny legal protections to the families of same-sex couples.

The campaign will be led by Michael Mitchell, who comes to the ACLU after serving as the Executive Director of Equality Utah, that state’s lesbian and gay advocacy organization.
"Our Constitution guarantees basic fairness to all people, yet lesbian and gay couples who make lasting commitments to each other just like married couples, are denied protections for their families," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.

"With states racing to enact amendments that will forever ban same-sex couples from getting legal protections, it is critical to show why it’s wrong to keep people from visiting their partners in the hospital or from making emergency medical decisions, and how it hurts children to be legal strangers to their parents."

The goal of the Marriage Campaign is to step up the dialogue with the American people and show through firsthand accounts how lesbian and gay couples and their children suffer when their families are not recognized by the law. Among other public education efforts, the campaign will offer assistance to local campaigns fighting constitutional amendments that seek to ban gay people from marriage and other family protections.

"One thing I learned during Utah’s recent constitutional amendment challenge is that most people don’t realize the toll these measures take on very real Americans with very real families," said Mitchell.

"When people are given the opportunity to see the chaos caused by our government’s treatment of gay families, their attitudes change. I’m eager to bring the lessons I learned here in Utah and from my colleagues around the country and focus them into an active, honest conversation with the American public."

Mitchell has served as the Executive Director of Equality Utah since 2001, when he helped to oversee the campaign to defeat Utah’s anti-gay relationship amendment. He is also on the board of the Equality Foundation, a network of statewide LGBT advocacy organizations. Prior to joining Equality Utah, he worked as a senior advisor on the congressional election campaign for Donald Dunn. He also served as the Executive Director of the Gay/Lesbian American Music Awards.

"We’re at a defining moment in the civil rights struggle for gay people," said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

"While we have recently made several important breakthroughs, our opponents are motivated like never before. It’s time to fight back, and with Michael’s enthusiasm and leadership we hope to show America that this is simply a matter of basic fairness for all families."

posted by Anthony # 6:58 AM

May 15, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:34 a.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, quietly married his longtime partner last year after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, according to a published report.

Studds, a liberal Democrat who spent more than 20 years in Congress, married Dean Hara in Boston on May 24, the Patriot Ledger of Quincy reported Sunday.

Studds, 68, and Hara, 47, declined to comment for the Ledger's story.

First elected to Congress in 1973, Studds built a loyal constituency that returned him to Washington with an average of nearly 70 percent of the vote over 12 elections.

That loyalty was tested in 1983 when it was revealed that Studds had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. He publicly acknowledged being gay and was censured by the House for sexual misconduct.

Studds admitted an error in judgment but did not apologize, and in 1984 was re-elected with 56 percent of the vote.

Tuesday is the one-year anniversary of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts. More than 6,000 same-sex couples have gotten married in the past year.

posted by Anthony # 6:41 AM

May 15, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:09 p.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- Matt Laderer figured it was the kind of stuff straight people talk about with their moms and dads: When is the right time to get married? How do you pop the question?
''I realized, I don't know that information,'' the 24-year-old mechanical engineer said on a recent night out with his boyfriend at Club Cafe, a gay bar in Boston's South End. ''I don't know when to buy the ring.''

When Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage one year ago, it was hailed by gays and lesbians as a huge milestone in their struggle for acceptance. But it also added a new dimension to the gay dating scene -- the pressure to get married.

There has always been the option of civil commitment ceremonies, but the opportunity to get married prompted thousands of couples to exchange vows in the days and weeks after it became legal on May 17 last year. And with lawmakers preparing for a second round of debate on a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, the window of opportunity might not be open forever.

The ramifications hit Mark Puleo within minutes of the first gay marriage licenses being issued. He stood on the steps of Cambridge City Hall that night with his then-boyfriend, watching as other couples walked inside at the stroke of midnight to get their licenses.

Then he realized: He might be proposed to.

''That was weird for me, very weird,'' the 29-year-old said. ''I did fear that in the spirit of the moment and all the excitement of the history that I could find myself being asked that question.''

He wasn't. That relationship ended and Puleo is now back in the dating game.

On lesbian night at Toast Lounge in Somerville, 27-year-old Sukari Neblett took a break from dancing and socializing to talk about what she's really here for: a wife.

''I have no problem with proposing,'' said Neblett, a tour consultant. ''I don't have any problems with being proposed to. I guess it depends on whoever does it first, when the time is right.''
Neblett hopes that time comes soon.

''At this stage of my life, I'm not going to date someone (if) it's not going to go anywhere,'' she said. ''I'm still young, but three years from now I'm going to be 30. I want kids.''

At a nearby booth, Noa Simons relaxed with her fiancee, Anne Conger, and their friend Natasha Williams, who is single. Simons and Conger got engaged two years ago, but the word has new meaning today.

''There is a shift happening in terms of language, customs, buying rings, financing rings,'' said Simons, 25. ''The (homosexual) community is adopting the language of the heterosexual community.''

Williams, a 25-year-old graduate student, agreed.

''Before, I never heard lesbians talk about financing a ring,'' she said.

Kristen Porter has been organizing lesbian nights at area bars for seven years. She said gay marriage has forced some couples to take their relationships more seriously.

''Prior to gay marriage, women often referred to each other as 'my wife,''' the 35-year-old said. ''Now, if you say 'my wife,' people say 'Oh, you got married.' It's bringing a little bit more realism to relationships.''

To the women at Toast, statistics from the first year of gay marriage bear out a long-held stereotype about lesbians: They jump into committed relationships faster than men. Of the more than 6,000 same-sex marriages conducted, more than two-thirds have been female couples.

For Porter and others, it calls to mind a well-worn joke in the gay community:
Question: What does a gay man bring to a second date?

Answer: What second date?

Question: What does a lesbian bring to a second date?

Answer: A U-Haul.

''In the entertainment industry, it's hard to keep lesbian nights going,'' Porter said. ''We provide a place for women to meet each other. Once they meet each other they stop going out. It's very different with gay men.''

Anthony Bures, founder of the national online gay dating service RequestADate.com, said he's noticed a change in personal ads by some of his Massachusetts clients.

''The word 'marriage' is popping up a lot more,'' he said.

A recent posting from a 36-year-old gay Boston man: ''I consider myself husband material, and would love the opportunity to share the true good things life has to offer.''

Back at Club Cafe, Laderer and his boyfriend of one year, 24-year-old Matt Mazer, see no reason to rush.

''Maybe in three years it might be different,'' said Laderer.

Added Mazer: ''On a first date, a heterosexual couple wouldn't say, 'So, wanna marry me?'''

posted by Anthony # 6:39 AM

May 15, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:09 a.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- Half of Americans disapprove of same-sex marriages and do not want their states to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts, a new survey by the Boston Globe shows.

The poll released Sunday found that 50 percent of Americans disapprove of gay and lesbian marriages, while 37 percent approve and 11 percent are neutral.

The poll also found that half of Americans believe gay marriages from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages are legal, should not be recognized in their state. Forty-six percent said they should be recognized.

The poll of 760 randomly selected adults was conducted May 4-9 by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.

Massachusetts began granting same-sex marriage licenses a year ago after a landmark decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court that declared the state could not prohibit gay marriages. More than 6,000 same-sex couples have since tied the knot in the state.

Although the poll found that half of Americans disapprove of gay marriages, 46 percent of those surveyed said they support civil unions that would provide gay couples with ''some, but not all of the legal rights of married couples.'' Forty-one percent opposed civil unions.

Americans older than age 65, Republicans, Protestants, regular churchgoers and Southerners were more likely to oppose gay marriage.

People under age 35, Democrats and people who do not attend worship services or attend sporadically were more likely to support gay marriages.

posted by Anthony # 6:39 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 15, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) A New Jersey judge has ruled that a lesbian couple can sue the employer of one of the women for creating a work so hostile it ruined the couple's sex lives.

The claim is part of a whistleblower suit against the Saint Barnabas Health Care System, Clara Maass Medical Center and five individuals.

Linda Henry was a paramedic at Clara Maass in Belleville, New Jersey. The suit says that when she complained to management that she was subjected to homophobia by her fellow workers the hospital embarked on its own campaign against her.

The suit claims she was forced to work in a hostile environment, given unfair shifts, and subjected to other forms of retaliation.

She says in the court papers that the situation became so bad it affected her home life and deprived her partner Judith Peterson of spousal attention.

Henry says that she suffered a heart attack and other health problems which directly impacted on Peterson. The women have been together for nine years and in August registered under New Jersey's domestic partner law.

In what is considered a landmark ruling Superior Court Judge James S. Rothschild Jr. said domestic partners should be treated in the same way as married couples and that the couple can pursue their consortium claim.

Rothschild said in his ruling that the law on consortium claims has evolved over the years and he cited the Domestic Partnership Act but added that damages could be considered only after the date that Henry and Peterson filed as domestic partners.

posted by Anthony # 6:34 AM

by Rich Peters 365Gay.com Western Canada Bureau
Posted: May 15, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Regina, Saskatchewan) A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal has ordered a former Regina man to pay more than $17,000 to four people who accused him of inciting hatred against gays and lesbians.

The tribunal also ordered Bill Whatcott and his group, Christian Truth Activists not to distribute material that promotes hatred against people because of their sexual orientation.

The complaint had been filed by four people in 2002 after Bill Whatcott's group distributed pamphlets in Regina and Saskatoon that referred to gays as "sodomites" and called same-sex relationships "filthy".One of the flyers said: "Sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children!"

At the initial hearing in 2002, Brendan Wallace, one of the complainants, testified that he was angry and fearful as a result of receiving the material at his home.

In its report, issued late last week, the tribunal said "Initially he thought it was a personal attack on his partner and himself ... He related some of his life experiences as a gay man and wondered how others would react, including members of his own family."

The tribunal says the money will compensate for hurt feelings, plus the loss of dignity and self-respect.Wallace said he was pleased the tribunal agreed spreading this kind of material is wrong, but he doubts Whatcott's group will obey the ruling.

"Only two weeks ago, we received some similar hate mail distributed to our house from the same man and the same group," he told the CBC.

Whatcott could not be reached for comment.

posted by Anthony # 6:33 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 15, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Democrats in Massachusetts endorsed a party platform that includes support for same-sex marriage at their annual convention this weekend.

Tuesday is the one-year anniversary of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts. More than 6,000 same-sex couples have married in the state in the last year.

The platform was approved without debate on a voice vote. Earlier, though, in a speech to delegates, Sen. Edward Kennedy spoke about the importance of ''fighting for civil rights here at home for all Americans,'' telling fellow Democrats that he backed the measure supporting gay marriage.

The position puts him at odds with the state's other US Senator, John Kerry.
Kerry did not attend the convention, but, this month he said it would be a mistake to put an endorsement of same-sex marriage in the platform.

"I think it's a mistake," Kerry told the Boston Globe. "I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Despite overwhelming approval of the marriage plank a number of delegates yelled "no" when the vote was taken at Lowell's Tsongas Arena.

The convention also heard from the two declared gubernatorial candidates. Both Attorney General Tom Reilly and former federal civil rights enforcer Deval Patrick, urged the party to reach beyond its base.

Reilly, who opposed gay marriage now says it's time for the state to move on and he launched a broadside at Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, calling him "the most partisan, divisive and ineffective governor I've seen in 25 years of public life."

On Sunday, the Boston Globe released a new poll that approval of same-sex marriage by Americans is gaining support but still falls far short of a majority.

Thirty-seven-percent of those surveyed in the national poll said they support gay marriage while an additional 11 percent said they did not care either way. Fifty percent of those surveyed said that same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

The poll, taken by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, also found that half of Americans believe gay marriages from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages are legal, should not be recognized in their state. Forty-six percent said they should be recognized.
The poll of 760 randomly selected adults was conducted May 4-9. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.

Although the poll found that half of Americans disapprove of gay marriages, 46 percent of those surveyed said they support civil unions that would provide gay couples with "some, but not all of the legal rights of married couples." Forty-one percent opposed civil unions.

It was also disclosed on the weekend that the first US congressman to come out has married his longtime partner in Massachusetts.

Former U.S. representative Gerry Studds, a liberal Democrat who spent more than 20 years in Congress, married Dean Hara in Boston on May 24, the Patriot Ledger of Quincy, Mass., reported Sunday.

Studds, 68, and Hara, 47, declined to comment for the Ledger's story.

First elected to Congress in 1973, Studds built a loyal constituency that returned him to Washington with an average of nearly 70 per cent of the vote over 12 elections.

That loyalty was tested in 1983 when it was disclosed that Studds had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. He publicly acknowledged being gay and was censured by the House for sexual misconduct.

Studds admitted an error in judgment but did not apologize, and in 1984 was re-elected with 56 per cent of the vote.

posted by Anthony # 6:32 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 16, 2005 12:01 am ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) A group of about 100 gay Roman Catholics and their supporters were denied Holy Communion at Pentecost Mass at the Cathedral of St. Paul on Sunday.

The Rainbow Sash Alliance has been taking Communion on Pentecost at the Cathedral for the past four years, but Archbishop Harry Flynn changed the policy this year, under pressure from the Vatican.

Earlier this month Flynn, in a letter to the Rainbow Sash Alliance, warned that members would be denied communion because their sashes were seen as a protest against Catholic teaching and unacceptable to the Vatican.

"I am asking you to remove your sashes before you receive Holy Communion," Flynn wrote. "I ask you to observe this sign of respect for the Eucharist not only in the Cathedral but in all our parishes. No one wearing the sash will be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament."
The Rainbow Sash movement is an international organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics and their families and friends.

Among those who attended mass Sunday were Dominican Sister Donna Quinn, director of the National Coalition of American Nuns, Joseph and Barbara Parot of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and long time Catholic gay rights activist Rick Garcia.

After the sash wearers were denied, Sister Donna, the Parots and Garcia approached the altar and received Communion. To the surprise of some, including the sash wearers, the four then approached the sash-wearers and gave them a portion of their consecrated hosts.

"It is a scandal that the Body of Christ would be denied to a baptized Catholic who approached the altar simply because of what he or she was wearing. I am still shocked and in disbelief that the priest would deny these people," said Sister Donna Quinn. "The Eucharist should not be used as a political tool and that is exactly what Cardinal George has made it."

Sister Quinn and the Parots approached the priest after Mass and expressed their displeasure and sadness at his action.

"Some priests and bishops throughout the country have denied communion to sash wearers today. How many of these same priests have ever denied anyone else communion?" Garcia asked. "This has nothing to do with upholding Church teaching and it has everything to do with rank anti-gay sentiment."

posted by Anthony # 6:31 AM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: May 16, 2005 12:01 am ET

(New York City) Oral arguments will begin today in a suit seeking to have gay and lesbian Holocaust survivors included in a settlement involving people who were persecuted by the Nazis.

Lambda Legal is representing the Pink Triangle Coalition, an international coalition of LGBT human rights organizations.

The case involves settlement proceedings resulting from a lawsuit against Switzerland's two largest banks and other Swiss defendants who profited unjustly as a result of Nazi atrocities.
A lower court denied the group's request for a small fraction of the $1.25 billion settlement monies. Today, the issue of recognizing LGBT victims will be heard in the Second Circuit Federal Appellate Court in Manhattan.

The Nazis required "sexual deviants" to wear the pink triangle.

Under Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which banned sexual intimacy between members of the same gender, an untold number of gays were rounded up by the Nazis and send to concentration camps where they were subjected to medical experiments including lobotomies, and forced to work in labor camps.

The number of gays sent to the camps ranges from 5,000 to 15,000, many of them sent to the gas chambers.

A memorial to LGBT holocaust victims is planned for Berlin. In January, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed shame over the horrors of the Nazi era, acknowledging that Adolf Hitler's regime enjoyed wide support among Germans and promising that his country will always try to keep alive the memory of the Holocaust.

But, there remains a large segment of society that has never acknowledged the persecution of gays under the Nazis.

In 2003, Minnesota state Rep. Arlon Lindner during debate on two bills he had brought forward to repeal gay rights laws in the state, said gays were lying when they cited thousands of homosexuals who were exterminated or sent to concentration camps by the Nazis.
"It never happened," Lindner told the House.

"I was a child during World War II, and I've read a lot about World War II," he said. "It's just been recently that anyone's come out with this idea that homosexuals were persecuted to this extent. There's been a lot of rewriting of history."

To counter his claim, the National Holocaust Museum, in Washington, D.C., arranged for an exhibit on gays in Nazi concentration camps to make an unscheduled stop in Minneapolis. Lindner refused to go.

posted by Anthony # 6:30 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com
Posted: May 16, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Jerusalem) World Pride celebrations scheduled for this summer in Jerusalem have been cancelled its organizers announced on Sunday.

Jerusalem's Open House, the LGBT center, which was to have sponsored the event, said that World Pride will be held instead August 6 - 12, 2006.

JOH said that the decision was made because Israel's pullout from Gaza would have come at the same time as this year's celebration.

Speculation has been mounting for several weeks that World Pride would be rescheduled since all available security forces would be needed to deal with the pullout and any possible repercussions.

Earlier this month a Jerusalem newspaper reported that the celebration had been cancelled but JOH quickly issued a denial saying it was awaiting word on the pullout date.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon now has decided to launch the Gaza pullout on August 16 just two days before World Pride was scheduled to begin.

“Tolerance, pluralism and equality are World Pride’s guiding principles,” said JOH Chairperson Noa Sattath.

“Holding World Pride during the Gaza pullout would do injustice to those values. We have taken this decision out of consideration to the most difficult political climate expected in Israel this August. As a community we are deeply engaged in the complex reality surrounding us.”
Local Jerusalem Pride celebrations will take place as scheduled this year on June 30.
“Pride in Jerusalem has already become a symbol for the courage and determination of Jerusalem’s diverse LGBT community,” said Hagai El-Ad, JOH Executive Director. “This June, we will show for the fourth consecutive year in Jerusalem that love has no borders.”

World Pride is held every five years. The last World Pride was held in 2000 in Rome. In selecting Jerusalem organizers unleaded a torrent of criticism including threats of violence.
Earlier this month Shimon Peres, Israel's Vice Premier and the leader of the Labor Party joined the growing opposition to the international event.

"It is inappropriate as Jerusalem is the center of three faiths, and such an event could offend the sensibilities of religious people the world over," Shimon Peres said.

In January conservative rabbis, Muslim clerics, and Christian fundamentalists in a rare show of solidarity began efforts to thwart World Pride celebrations.

At a news conference last month, Amar chief rabbi said that Jerusalem's Open House, the LGBT center which is organizing the celebration is "creating a deep and terrible sorrow that is unbearable."

"We can't permit anybody to come and make the Holy City dirty. This is very ugly and very nasty to have these people come to Jerusalem," Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik, said.

Other Muslim officials have warned that if the gay pride organizers do not heed warnings and attempt to march in Jerusalem, “their lives will be in danger”.

Last month a man entered the doorway of Jerusalem's only gay club and threw a burning rag inside causing extensive damage but no injuries.

posted by Anthony # 6:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 15, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) A New Jersey judge has ruled that a lesbian couple can sue the employer of one of the women for creating a work so hostile it ruined the couple's sex lives.
The claim is part of a whistleblower suit against the Saint Barnabas Health Care System, Clara Maass Medical Center and five individuals.

Linda Henry was a paramedic at Clara Maass in Belleville, New Jersey. The suit says that when she complained to management that she was subjected to homophobia by her fellow workers the hospital embarked on its own campaign against her.

The suit claims she was forced to work in a hostile environment, given unfair shifts, and subjected to other forms of retaliation.

She says in the court papers that the situation became so bad it affected her home life and deprived her partner Judith Peterson of spousal attention.

Henry says that she suffered a heart attack and other health problems which directly impacted on Peterson. The women have been together for nine years and in August registered under New Jersey's domestic partner law.

In what is considered a landmark ruling Superior Court Judge James S. Rothschild Jr. said domestic partners should be treated in the same way as married couples and that the couple can pursue their consortium claim.

Rothschild said in his ruling that the law on consortium claims has evolved over the years and he cited the Domestic Partnership Act but added that damages could be considered only after the date that Henry and Peterson filed as domestic partners.

posted by Anthony # 10:40 AM

May 14, 2005
New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:10 p.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- Opponents saw it as a huge blow to the American family. Supporters looked on it as a moment of liberation. The first legal gay marriages in Massachusetts were a pivotal moment in America's culture wars. A year later, the legacy is mixed -- they remain legal here, and civil unions have been legalized in neighboring Connecticut, but a dozen states were propelled to prohibit same-sex weddings.

More than 6,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot in Massachusetts, many rushing to exchange vows in the days and weeks that followed the May 17 start to the weddings.

But the flurry of gay weddings that followed in California, Oregon and New York turned out to be merely symbolic, and activists have dug in for what they say could be a decades-long battle akin to the abortion divide.

One thing seems increasingly clear: Massachusetts could remain the country's sole haven for same-sex marriage for years to come.

''Massachusetts fundamentally changed the question,'' said Mary Bonauto, the attorney who represented the seven same-sex couples in the landmark lawsuit. ''Now the question isn't whether gay and lesbian couples should be treated fairly under the law, the question is how and when.''

For many states, however, the answer to that question seems to be ''never.''

So far, 18 states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage while just one state -- Connecticut -- enacted a law legalizing civil unions.

''I think gay marriage in Massachusetts was a bridge too far for the gay activist movement. It's produced the biggest social backlash we've seen in our era,'' said Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. ''Gay activists will regret having pushed that limit when they did.''

The story is far from over, even in Massachusetts, where the gay marriage question faces another crucial test later this year.

After the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry -- and set May 17 as the first day the licenses could be issued -- opponents set their sights on changing the constitution.

Massachusetts lawmakers took the first step last year by passing a proposed amendment that would ban marriage but legalize civil unions -- a patchwork solution with an uncertain future. Lawmakers are expected to take a second vote later this year, which is required to put the amendment on a November 2006 ballot.

For the most part, though, the protests and rancor have died down in Massachusetts.

''There was so much tumult about this and fear and panic by our opponents,'' said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. ''A year later the only people who seem to think about our marriages are the gay folks who got married.''

Outside Massachusetts, it's a different story. Opponents say they expect the juggernaut of constitutional amendments blocking gay marriage to keep rolling along as more people realize the threat posed to traditional marriage.

Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee plan elections next year on same-sex marriage bans, and more than a dozen other states are considering them.

''There's nothing clearer than the fact that the American people want marriage to be left alone,'' Minnery said. ''This issue has awakened the conservative church and that wave is still building.''

Gay marriage supporters think time is on their side. They say young people are more accepting of gay rights and as they age, the country as a whole will grow more tolerant.

''States like Massachusetts are doing something that's so important. They are educating the rest of the country that it is no big deal,'' said Cheryl Jacques, the former president of the Human Rights Campaign who married her partner in August. ''Once you've tasted full equality there is no going back. There is no turning this around.''

posted by Anthony # 5:14 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 14, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Austin, Texas) The Texas lawmaker behind a bill that would ban gays and lesbians from being foster parents in the state says he was called on by God.

The measure has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.

Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) made his assertion in a letter he gave to state Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) after she criticized the legislation.

The Dallas Morning News obtained details of the letter from two other legislators. Neither Talton nor Nelson would discuss its contents with the paper.

One of the legislators, Sen. Jon Lindsay (R-Houston), told the News that he was shown the two-page letter. According to Lindsay Talton spoke of a religious mission to hold conservatives, including Nelson, accountable. Talton also cited several Bible passages to support his opposition to homosexuality, Lindsay said.

The second lawmaker, who spoke to the paper only on the condition of anonymity confirmed the contents of the letter.

Talton refused an interview with the Morning News and has resisted an open records request by the paper for the letter. An attorney for Talton said that the lawmaker believes he should not have to disclose the letter.

But, an attorney for The News said the Public Information Act allows no exception to its disclosure requirements for such letters.

Talton 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 during debate on the legislation last month.
"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.

posted by Anthony # 5:13 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 14, 2005 4:00 pm ET
(Window Rock, Arizona) A Navajo lawmaker has accused the tribal president of failing to see the importance of a measure that would have outlawed same-sex marriages on the Indian reservation.Council Delegate Larry Anderson said in a statement that many Navajos are saddened that President Joe Shirley Jr. has vetoed the Dine Marriage Act. Dine is the Navajos' name for themselves."

The president merely acted on his undefined discretionary veto authority to reject this legislation," Anderson said. "The president's abuse of the veto power necessitates the re-evaluation of the president's veto power."Anderson is sponsoring legislation aimed at overturning Shirley's decision. The Tribal Council voted unanimously last month in favor of the Dine Marriage Act of 2005.

The act would have restricted a recognized union to a relationship between a man and a woman and prohibited plural marriages as well as any marriage between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters and other close relatives.

Supporters have said the goal was to promote family values and preserve marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.In vetoing the measure, Shirley said same-sex marriage is a non-issue on the reservation.

If tribal members wished to define marriage or take a position for or against same-sex unions, Shirley said he would support their decision to do that through an initiative rather than a Tribal Council vote.

Shirley has said he supports family stability and the need for Navajo husbands and wives to love and support each other and their children.But he said the act had nothing about domestic violence, sexual assault and gangs on the Navajo Nation - problems he said were rampant.The law focused on a problem that doesn't exist and would only generate disharmony and disunity, he said.Anderson's argument: "As the Navajo Nation promotes stable family units and preserves and strengthens family values, we are a step closer to addressing crime, child abuse, drug abuse and other social, environmental and health care issues."

posted by Anthony # 5:12 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 14, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Houston, Texas) A Houston lawyer who called on Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools last year is now asking churches to investigate whether schools are teaching acceptance of homosexuality.

Bruce Shortt's resolution was rejected last year, but he is proposing another to be considered at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Nashville next month.

If churches find that public schools are teaching acceptance of homosexuality, the resolution calls on parents to remove their children and either home-school them or enroll them in Christian schools.

The resolution was co-written by the Rev. Voddie Baucham Jr., a popular Christian speaker and writer from the Houston suburb of Spring. He is to speak at the Southern Baptist Convention's pastors conference in Nashville next month. ''We need to raise the awareness that there is an aggressive effort to teach our children acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle,'' Baucham said.

The proposal has been submitted to the Resolutions Committee, which will decide whether to present it to the whole convention. There's no guarantee it will ever reach the floor of the convention, Southern Baptist Convention spokesman John Revell said.

With more than 16 million members, the Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's second-largest denomination. Resolutions approved by the convention are nonbinding, and all member churches are autonomous in their ministries.

The resolution says schools promote acceptance of gays through officially sanctioned gay clubs, diversity training, anti-bullying courses, and safe sex and safe schools programs.

It also claims homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking cigarettes and is associated with a ''drastically increased risk of contracting various cancers.''

Shortt, who wrote a book titled The Harsh Truth About Public Schools, has been a steady critic of public education.

''Christian parents are obligated to provide an education that imparts a Christian world view, and we cannot expect a public school system to do that,'' Shortt said. ''The public school system is resolutely anti-Christian.''

The Shortt and Baucham resolution also says the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association, and its affiliates are pressuring state legislatures to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.

''It really baffles me how a caring parent could find fault with public schools for trying to teach children to be respectful of others,'' NEA spokeswoman Melinda Anderson said.

Eliza Byard, deputy executive director of the New York-based Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, said the resolution was an example of adults' using students to push a political agenda.
''All children in a pluralistic society will meet people with whom they will not agree,'' she said. ''But it's important they learn to treat all with respect.''

The resolution submitted last year by Shortt and T.C. Pinckney, publisher of a Baptist newsletter, urged parents to remove their children from ''godless'' public schools. That resolution was rejected by the committee.

posted by Anthony # 5:11 PM

May 13, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:47 a.m. ET
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- Nebraska's ban on gay marriage was struck down by a federal judge who ruled the measure interferes with the rights of gay couples and people in a host of other living arrangements, including foster parents and adopted children. The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled Thursday the ban ''imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights'' of gays ''and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process.''

Bataillon said the ban ''goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman.''
State Attorney General Jon Bruning said he would appeal the ruling.

The judge said the ''broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals.''

Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban went further, prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gays and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system, for example, were banned from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.
Nebraska has no state law against gay marriage, but Bruning said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.

''Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit,'' he said.

The challenge was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.

Lamba Legal attorney David Buckel has called the ban ''the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation.''

Carla Petersen, a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Omaha, which advocates for gay rights, hailed the ruling.

''Every step is a good step,'' Petersen said. ''It really will get the ball rolling again.''

The ruling did not surprise the executive director of the Nebraska Family Council, which led the petition drive to get the ban on the ballot. Al Riskowski said the decision will renew the call to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October

posted by Anthony # 9:13 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 12, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Washington) The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of acting appeals court Judge William Pryor. He was one of four hotly disputed judicial nominees approved by the committee today.
All four nominations now move to Senate floor.
In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Pryor's nomination for a lifetime appointment to the appeals court 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.

Democrats are once more threatening to filibuster in a bid to block a final vote but Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has threatened legislation to disallow future filibusters and force a vote on Pryor and the others.

LGBT civil rights and political groups have opposed Pryor's nomination.

"It is incredibly rare for our organization to oppose a Republican judicial nomination. Mr. Pryor's record, however, is so out of step with mainstream Republican values and contemporary jurisprudence that Log Cabin is compelled to forcefully oppose his nomination," said Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Guerriero in an open letter to senators.

Last month Lambda Legal released a summary of Pryor's record saying that 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.

posted by Anthony # 9:11 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 12, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) In a move that has surprised many on both sides of the issue of same-sex marriage openly gay state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios has proposed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Last March a joint session of the House and Senate, known as the Constitutional Conference, narrowly approved a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.

The amendment was a compromise, worked out by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees, after it appeared that just a ban on gay marriage might not pass.

But, given no other choice, the marriage ban that would allow civil unions passed with many conservatives saying that if they had the chance they would oppose civil unions too.
The measure must be approved again in this session of the legislature before going to voters. Wednesday a date was set for the Constitutional Convention to meet - Aug. 24.

Barrios, who married his partner last November hopes his amendment will divide the anti-gay unions vote ensuring that neither would pass.

''My sponsoring this bill is to allow the elected legislators of the Commonwealth to once again review and I hope reject this effort to write discrimination into the Constitution," Barrios told the Boston Herald, declining to comment further.

Same-sex marriage opponents, even those opposed to the possibility of civil unions, denounced Barrios' move.

Kristian M. Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, was asked by the Herald if he is worried that conservatives could abandon the whole amendment process.

''It definitely does," he said.

Although it was filed by Barrios, the proposed amendment was not written by him. It came from two conservative Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts May 17, 2004. Since then more than 6,000 gay and lesbian couples have married in the state.

posted by Anthony # 9:11 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 12, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Santiago) Chile's Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that ordered a lesbian mother to give up custody of her three daughters.

Karen Atala is able to see the children only one weekend a month. The court ruled that because she is in a lesbian relationship it could have a negative impact on the children's development and create confusion over sexual roles.

Atala appealed to the Supreme Court and filed a complaint with Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accusing Chile of gross discrimination.

The commission greed to take up the case and asked Chile to justify the ruling.

The Chilean Supreme Court in upholding the lower court ruling offered no public comment on its reasons, saying instead that it would provide a written ruling to the government.

Chile has until the end of the month to reply to the Inter-American Commission.

posted by Anthony # 9:09 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 12, 2005 11:00 am ET Updated 2:00 pm ET

(Lincoln, Nebraska) A bill that would ban discrimination against gay and lesbian state workers has been defeated by two votes in the Nebraska Legislature.

The measure was proposed by Sen. Ernie Chambers (D-Omaha) as an amendment to a budget bill. It would have banned discrimination against gays and lesbians employed by the state, or any entity that receives state funding.

State government should not concern itself with a person's private life, and it especially should not discriminate based on whether a person is gay, Chambers said.

But Sen. Mike Foley (R-Lincoln) who voted against the measure asserted that it should not have been made as an add on to a budget bill.

That brought a rebuke from Chambers who accused Foley of being subsidized by the Catholic Church. Foley, who is Catholic, is a strong opponent of gay rights and abortion.

"You owe me an apology. That is very unfair," said Foley who is frequently at odds with Chambers. "I take that as a direct attack on my credibility."

Following the vote the two met privately. Later, Chambers said he refused to apologize.
Following defeat of the legislation banning discrimination in state hiring, a second bill put forward by Chambers, to discrimination of gay employees at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Creighton University and Boys Town National Research Hospital passed on a 23 - 11 vote.

Another LGBT rights bill sponsored by Chambers would ban gay discrimination in any workplace in the state. That bill has been stuck in the Judiciary Committee. But, as part of a deal Chambers struck earlier this week, he agreed to pull his opposition to a tax break bill in exchange for his gay discrimination bill to be considered as an amendment to another measure awaiting debate.

Nebraska law currently prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex, disability or national origin. Chambers wants to add sexual orientation to the list.
Nebraska has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and bans gays from being foster parents. Chambers said that because his proposal to guarantee LGBT civil rights lost by only two votes he believes attitudes in the state are changing.

posted by Anthony # 9:08 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 12, 2005 6:30 pm ET

(Lincoln, Nebraska) A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The constitutional amendment, passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. It banned any and all forms of legal recognition for same-sex relationships, including domestic partnerships and other basic protections.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays and lesbians and "creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Bataillon noted noted in his ruling that the plaintiffs in the case had not requested any recognition of their relationships through marriage or any other legal status, but merely sought an equal opportunity to persuade legislators of the need for protections.

He went on to say, "The court finds Section 29 is a denial of access to one of our most fundamental sources of protection, the government. Such broad exclusion from 'an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civil life in a free society' is 'itself a denial of equal protections in the literal sense.'"

The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.

"This anti-gay-union law, in effect, hung a sign on the door of the Unicameral saying 'Same-Sex Couples Not Allowed,'" said David Buckel, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.

"It makes no sense that Americans who believe in commitment and want to be more responsible to each other and their children have to fight so hard just for the right to try to persuade legislators that protections for family are important - successful or not, all citizens should have an equal shot in the democratic process."

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit., said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.

"I intend to pursue this case vigorously," he said. "Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit."

Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the ruling is "evidence that ultimately only a federal constitutional amendment will protect normal, traditional marriage."

Bauer, who is the president of American Values continued, "I am saddened and outraged that another federal judge has ignored the will of the American people to align with gay rights groups and substitute personal liberal philosophies for the clear, lawful policies chosen by the electorate. Despite the overwhelming number of Nebraskans who expressed their support for marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman, a single judge decided he knew better."
On Wednesday the Nebraska Legislature defeated a bill that would ban discrimination against gay and lesbian state workers.

posted by Anthony # 9:07 AM

May 11, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:01 a.m. ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Conservative groups in California say they will try to gather enough signatures to put an initiative banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2006.

The announcement came Tuesday after committees of state lawmakers rejected a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages and strip away a long list of rights granted to domestic partners in recent years.

''This disturbing display of arrogance against marriage and the voters means average Californians must take matters into their own hands,'' said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

But Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the first openly gay person elected to the Legislature, predicted otherwise. ''This is about America, the place where no civil rights movement has ever failed,'' she said.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment offered by Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes, who claimed the proposal would strengthen the intent of voters who approved a ballot measure five years ago that prevents the state from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Hours later, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against an identical measure.
Other laws already bar same-sex marriages from taking place in California.

Opponents of the amendment said it was an attempt to repeal domestic partners' rights. Since 1999, the Legislature has approved a series of bills recognizing domestic partnerships and granting them most of the rights given married couples, including the right to sue for wrongful death of a partner and to adopt a partner's child.

Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said the proposed amendment amounted to ''legalizing discrimination.''

''The fact is plain and simple,'' he said. ''There is a group of people who, for whatever reason, do not like gays and cannot tolerate the idea of two women sleeping together or two men sleeping together. To put that into the constitution... is simply unconscionable.''

Meanwhile, in Raleigh, N.C., hundreds of people rallied behind the Legislative Building on Tuesday to urge legislators to allow them to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

An election on the proposed constitutional amendment appears unlikely. Two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate are needed to authorize a statewide vote, but referendum bills filed in both chambers have sat in committees for three months without action.
North Carolina already has a law banning same-sex marriages and the state doesn't recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

posted by Anthony # 8:35 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 11, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Baltimore, Maryland) The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland has adopted a resolution opposing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure was among four pro-gay resolutions approved by delegates to the group's annual convention.

The diocese also endorsed legislation that allows same-sex couples to make medical decisions for their partners and a hate crimes bill. Both measures have passed the legislature but are sitting on the Governor's desk.

The fourth resolution calls on the denomination to establish a commission to study and recommend "appropriate pastoral responses to couples living in relationships other than marriage."

Episcopal Bishop Robert W. Ihloff said all four resolutions passed with a sizable majority and defend "the rights of all persons," which is called for in the Gospel.

"It is clear that Our Lord Jesus Christ worked among the poor and spoke out for the marginalized," he said.

"Issues of social justice lie at the heart of the Gospel. All persons are loved children of God, and Jesus and our Baptismal Covenant call us to 'love our neighbor' and to 'respect the dignity of every person.' As we 'seek and serve Christ in every person,' we are called to defend the rights of all persons and fight against bigotry and discrimination at every level."

The issue of homosexuality has divided the worldwide Anglican faith since the elevation of Gene Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson is the first openly gay bishop in the Church.
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. It passed the legislature last month

Also passed last month was a bill adding sexuality and gender identity to the categories of people protected under the state's hate crimes law.

Both pieces of legislation are sitting on the desk of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.. Ehrlich has not indicated if he will sign or veto three gay rights bills including one that would create a limited domestic partnership registry.

If he does nothing, both bill will automatically become law at the end of this month.

posted by Anthony # 8:34 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 11, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(London) The archbishop of Canterbury on Wednesday created a panel to deal with one of the most explosive issues in the Anglican Communion - bishops who cross boundaries to support rebellious congregations.

The issue was related to a wider debate about gay clergy that threatens to split the global union of 35 national churches.

Archbishop Rowan Williams announced that the Panel of Reference would be led by the Australian primate, the Most Rev. Peter Carnley.

The panel is likely to pay particular attention to the United States, where some conservative Episcopal congregations have rejected the oversight of their diocesan bishop and instead affiliated with like-minded bishops from Africa and other areas. These cases are known as "extended episcopal oversight."

Eight more members of the panel are to be appointed next week, the Anglican Communion office in London announced.

Williams empowered the panel to "enquire into, consider and report on situations drawn to my attention where there is serious dispute concerning the adequacy of schemes of delegated or extended episcopal oversight or other extraordinary arrangements."

A spokeswoman for presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, said he considered the formation of the panel a "splendid idea."

Griswold repeatedly has said he is committed to providing alternative pastoral care for Episcopalians of differing views. However, conservatives have complained the plan still leaves them vulnerable to the authority of their local bishop.

In the U.S. Episcopal Church, a group of conservative bishops led by the Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, have formed a "network" to insist that the church affirm traditional teaching against same-sex relationships.

Some of these conservative bishops have antagonized other bishops by conducting confirmation or ordination services outside their dioceses.

Williams called on all the leaders of the national churches to report within 14 days on all instances of extended oversight in their territories.

He asked "each bishop of the Communion to respect fully and in accordance with its spirit any scheme of delegation or extended oversight established in his or her province."
Williams called on any parish that is unhappy with its bishop to work first of all with the bishop to resolve any dispute about oversight.

The appointment of the panel flows from the feud over the election of V. Gene Robinson, who is living with a male partner, as bishop of the Episcopal diocese of New Hampshire. Blessings of same-sex unions in some places in the United States and Canada have added to the tension.
Meeting in Northern Ireland in February, leaders of the national churches asked the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council for three years - a move some feared could be the first step toward a permanent split in the 77 million-strong communion.

The two churches also were asked to explain the theological reasoning behind the consecration of Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the decision by the western Canadian diocese of New Westminster to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions.

The bishops' communique said Anglican teaching on sexuality had "been seriously undermined by the recent developments in North America." A 1998 resolution adopted by all Anglican bishops declared that gay sex was "incompatible with Scripture" and opposed gay ordinations and same-sex blessings.

posted by Anthony # 8:33 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: May 11, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Madrid) The Roman Catholic Church has called on the Spanish king to refuse to sign legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

The bill has passed Spain's lower house and is now before the Senate. It is expected to be passed this summer.The Conferencia Espiscopal, the Spanish Bishops' Organization, tells the El Mundo newspaper that they wrote to King Juan Carlos last Friday calling on him to issue a clear and incisive statement opposing the legislation.

But, it is unlikely the King will take any action on the letter. Spain is a constitutional monarchy and the king is not permitted to hold up legislation, and as in Britain, the monarchy does not enter public debate on political issues.

In his "state of the nation" address to Parliament on Wednesday, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero lashed out at the Church.

"I will never understand those who proclaim love as the foundation of life, while denying so radically protection, understanding and affection to our neighbors, our friends, our relatives, our colleagues," Zapatero told parliament.

"What kind of love is this that excludes those who experience their sexuality in a different way?" he said.

The Church has been involved in a lengthy dispute with Zapatero's Socialist government over the gay marriage bill.

Last year, shortly after Zapatero announced he would bring in the legislation, he was summoned to Rome for a lecture by Pope John Paul. Nevertheless, Zapatero and his government refused to bow under the pressure.

The attacks have continued under Pope Benedict. 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.

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 # 8:31 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 11, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Troy, Michigan) A Troy High School classroom poster with a message that "gay people are everyday people," has ignited protests from some parents at the suburban Detroit school.
One of the parents, Anthony Cruz, 49, said he expects about 80 people to join the protest at the next Troy School Board meeting, on May 17. He said the problem with the poster is that the school is supposed to concentrate on academics and leave other matters for after-school time and activities.

Instead, the classroom poster has a "a captive audience," in students, Cruz told The Daily Tribune of Royal Oak. He has two daughters at the school.

Troy School District spokesman Tim McAvoy said Superintendent Janet H. Jopke has met with some parents over the poster and will continue to talk to them about it. He said the poster promotes safety and tolerance.

"We do not allow our students to be harassed for any reason. It is an issue of tolerance," McAvoy said.

He said the poster has been displayed in the Troy High School classroom for two years. The same poster, unveiled in October 2002 at the Affirmation Lesbian-Gay Community Center in Ferndale, isn't posted in any other Troy classroom, McAvoy said.

He said a student group called Human Equal Rights Organization asked for it.

Troy Board of Education member Ida Edmunds said Jopke approved the poster for the classroom with the sanction of the school board.

But Patricia Raezler, 55, a member of Parents Promoting Innocence in Bloomfield Hills, which supports Troy parents in the poster issue, said the school shouldn't be promoting sexuality of any kind.

"We are promoting innocence," said Raezler, whose children attend private school. "Once, these types of things were left up to the parents. Then there was a push to inform and let pupils know about sexuality. It hasn't decreased sexually transmitted diseases."

Rather than have a poster about a particular group, Raezler said, the schools should be promoting tolerance and acceptance of all people.

posted by Anthony # 8:30 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: May 11, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Ottawa) Canada's minority government is expected to be toppled next week and with it same-sex marriage legislation.

Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Wednesday that he has scheduled a vote on his government's budget for May 19. Loss of a budget vote is considered a loss of confidence in the government and would force an election.

"If the government loses the vote next Thursday, I will seek the dissolution of this Parliament," Martin told reporters following a caucus meeting. The earliest date for an election would be June 27.

The Liberal government has been on life support for months - mainly the result of a political scandal involving allegations of kickbacks, payoffs, and judicial appointments to party hacks.
Earlier this week the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebec held a dress rehearsal for the defeat of the government. In a key vote the rightwing party and the separatist party teamed up to defeat the measure 153-150.

If as expected, the Liberals expire next Thursday, all pending legislation would die with it.
The same-sex marriage bill passed second reading in the Commons earlier this month. Committee hearings mean it could not return to the House for a final vote for weeks. It would then need Senate passage and royal assent.

"There's a growing consensus the current government is in its final days," Gilles Marchildon, the executive director of national LGBT rights group Egale told 365Gay.com Wednesday.

With an election on the horizon public opinion polls are divided over who might win. A Decima Poll shows the Liberals would return to power, but a Gregg Poll shows it would be the Tories. Both polls, show whoever wins they would form another minority government.

A new Liberal government would most likely quickly reintroduce the same-sex marriage bill. But, a Conservative government is pledged to fight gay marriage. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has proposed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman but allow for civil unions.

Harper also said he wants to end existing marriage rights in the seven provinces and one territory where courts have ruled in favor of same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 8:29 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 12, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Washington) The federal government has changed its Web site advising parents how to talk to their children about sex after several groups said it presented biased and inaccurate information.

The site received about 5 million hits in its first month of operation. In recent days, the section on sexual orientation was changed to address some of the concerns voiced by the LGBT community.

For example, the term "alternative lifestyle" was replaced with "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyle," which addressed the concern that the Bush administration was labeling sexual orientation as choice.

In addition, the portion telling parents of gay children to consider seeing a family therapist who shares their values was changed to say "counselors and other health professionals may be helpful to both teens and parents when addressing difficult issues."

"While the section could certainly still be strengthened, we are immensely grateful for the fact that some of the changes are marked improvements to the old text," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote in a letter he sent Wednesday to Michael Leavitt, secretary of Health and Human Services.

Dr. Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at HHS, said the plan all along was to review, update and expand the Web site as new information became available.
"Actually, we've got some very useful comments from multiple areas of the country that I think can be used to improve the overall Web site," she said.

Golden said focus groups helped the department develop the Web site, which stresses abstinence, and that some of the concerns surprised her because they did not set off alarm bells in the focus groups. For example, she cited the phrase "alternative lifestyle," and said, "We were not aware that was an area of sensitivity."

Golden said children questioning their sexual orientation can become depressed because they feel isolated. She said some parents may feel awkward about addressing the issue, and the department is just trying to help them communicate with their children.

"The point is to be sure you maintain a sense of acceptance, love and communication while these teens are dealing with these questions," she said.

Another organization that had criticized the Web site, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, described the changes as minimal. The advocacy group said it has yet to hear back from the department about the issues it raised.

"We're thankful for the change, but it's just a Band-Aid," said Bill Smith, vice president for public policy at SIECUS, calling for a broader review of the entire Web site.

posted by Anthony # 8:27 AM

May 11, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:32 a.m. ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Conservative groups in California say they will try to gather enough signatures to put an initiative banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2006.
The announcement came Tuesday after committees of state lawmakers rejected a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages and strip away a long list of rights granted to domestic partners in recent years.

''This disturbing display of arrogance against marriage and the voters means average Californians must take matters into their own hands,'' said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

But Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the first openly gay person elected to the Legislature, predicted otherwise. ''This is about America, the place where no civil rights movement has ever failed,'' she said.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment offered by Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes, who claimed the proposal would strengthen the intent of voters who approved a ballot measure five years ago that prevents the state from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Hours later, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against an identical measure.
Other laws already bar same-sex marriages from taking place in California.

Opponents of the amendment said it was an attempt to repeal domestic partners' rights. Since 1999, the Legislature has approved a series of bills recognizing domestic partnerships and granting them most of the rights given married couples, including the right to sue for wrongful death of a partner and to adopt a partner's child.

Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said the proposed amendment amounted to ''legalizing discrimination.''

''The fact is plain and simple,'' he said. ''There is a group of people who, for whatever reason, do not like gays and cannot tolerate the idea of two women sleeping together or two men sleeping together. To put that into the constitution... is simply unconscionable.''

Meanwhile, in Raleigh, N.C., hundreds of people rallied behind the Legislative Building on Tuesday to urge legislators to allow them to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

An election on the proposed constitutional amendment appears unlikely. Two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate are needed to authorize a statewide vote, but referendum bills filed in both chambers have sat in committees for three months without action.

North Carolina already has a law banning same-sex marriages and the state doesn't recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

posted by Anthony # 8:08 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 10, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts lawmakers will take up a proposed amendment to the state Constitution this fall that would ban same-sex marriage.

Senate President Robert E. Travaglini tells the New York Times that he has begun taking the necessary steps to convene a Constitutional Convention, a joint meeting of the House and Senate.

Travaglini, a Democrat, is a co-sponsor of the amendment, which would block same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.

The measure was given preliminary approval last year but needs to pass again in the Convention during this session of the Legislature in order to go to voters. The earliest it could be placed on the ballot would be 2006.

Last March when the proposed amendment passed the first phase, it did so by only a handful of votes and after heated debate. Many Democrats opposed the measure and many Republicans who object to gay marriage voted against it because it would permit civil unions.
"When he crafted the compromise amendment it was recognizing that half of the constituents and half of the voters felt that there should be a definition that marriage was between a man and a woman, and half said there should be civil marriage [for same-sex couples]" Travaglini's spokesperson Ann Dufresne told the Times.

But, a lot has changed over the past year.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts last May and the media coverage of the weddings and the upcoming celebrations of the first year of the marriages has had an impact on voters.

Earlier this year a Boston Globe poll found that a majority of voters in the state would reject an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In addition it found that 71 percent of Massachusetts Democrats believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared to 35 percent of the Republicans surveyed.

Later this month state Democrats are expected to endorse a party platform supporting same-sex marriage.

In addition, last November Massachusetts voters elected a more moderate legislature. A survey of the House and Senate in February showed that the amendment is unlikely to get the 101 votes votes needed.

But, LGBT activists say they are taking no chances. When the proposed amendment comes before the Convention they plan to stage a mass demonstration in front of the State House.

posted by Anthony # 8:06 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 10, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Raleigh, North Carolina) Several hundred people demonstrated at the North Carolina legislature Tuesday in support of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
The protestors, from conservative Christian churches throughout the state, demanded that the measure advance to a full vote in the legislature and then go on November's ballot.

North Carolina already has a so-called Defense of Marriage Act to prevent same-sex couples from marrying but supporters of the amendment say the law could be overturned by a court. Only with a constitutional amendment, they argue, could the courts be forced to maintain marriage as an opposite sex union.

Republicans in the legislature attended the rally along with a handful of Democrats.
In Washington, National Stonewall Democrats accused Republicans of coordinating the rally and funding its promotion.

The "Marriage Under Fire" rally was officially organized by a group calling itself "Call2Action" based in Wake County, North Carolina. It was formed in 2004 after the Human Relations Commission of the City of Raleigh proposed adopting a policy that would bar employment discrimination based on sexual orientation for city workers.

According to NSD, Call2Action's board of directors is composed primarily of large-scale Republican donors.

Rally speakers included Bill Maier of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Both groups recently organized a pro-Republican rally titled "Justice Sunday" that featured U.S. Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist.

Today's action also headlined North Carolina Republican State Senator Fred Smith of Clayton. Many of the directors of Call2Action are also strong financial supporters of Smith, who is expected to become a 2008 gubernatorial candidate.

Stonewall Democrats accuse the North Carolina Republican party of leading efforts to register participants, build crowd capacity, direct traffic and solicit donations.

"We urge Ken Mehlman, as Chair of the Republican National Committee, to investigate potential illegal political coordination on behalf of the Republican Party of North Carolina, and to distance the RNC from their efforts," said Eric Stern, NSD Executive Director.

"The North Carolina Republican Party has consistently attacked same-sex families and marginalized gay Republicans. It is time for the RNC to offer some adult supervision."
Last weekend evangelical Christians attempted to disrupt Pride celebrations in Charlotte.

posted by Anthony # 8:05 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 10, 2005 6:30 pm ET

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed a resolution that would ban books on gay families from the children's sections of public libraries.

The measure does not have the power of law but calls on Oklahoma libraries to "confine homosexually themed books and other age-inappropriate material to areas exclusively for adult access and distribution."

It passed, 81-3 and now will be distributed to library boards across the state.

The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) said that the vote shows public libraries that they must aware of the "values that our state upholds".

Kern called one book, King and King, "obscene".

King and King is aimed at elementary school children and helps teach diversity. The book, by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland, tells the story of Prince Bertie who searches for love through a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.

The 32 page book ends with the two princes sharing a kiss.

Kern denies her resolution is a form of censorship.

"This isn't censorship, because I'm not asking that they be thrown away, be burned. I'm asking that they just be put in with adult collections and then if a parent wants their child to see a book like that they can check it out," she said.

The resolution states that a child's development "should be at the discretion of a child's parents free from interference from the distribution of inappropriate publicly cataloged materials" and that public libraries should not expose children to material "that may be deemed harmful and inappropriate."

"Where's the stopping point on this?" asked Darrell Gilbert (D-Tulsa)

"If this is a book that you want to have in, quote, an adult-only access part of the library - which there aren't any such things -- you're going to have to take every anatomy book and put it in there, too, because it has nude bodies in it, pictures of body parts. Where does it stop?"

posted by Anthony # 8:05 AM

by Mary Ellen Peterson 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: May 10, 2005 6:30 pm ET Updated 7:50 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) Conservative groups vowed Tuesday they would immediately begin gathering names to force a vote on amending the California Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

The move followed a broad rebuff this afternoon in two committees at the Legislature.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 6 to 3 Tuesday to reject a proposed amendment sponsored by Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Riverside).

The defeat was not unexpected despite supporters' claims the proposal would reinforce voters' intentions when they approved Proposition 22 five years ago.

That ballot measure was designed to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere. Other laws bar the state from approving same-sex marriages that take place in California.

The proposed amendment was supported by the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group fighting same-sex marriage in the California courts.

The proposed amendment in addition to banning gay marriage would have repealed any legal protections and responsibilities for LGBT people and their families, including California’s comprehensive domestic partnership law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee later in the day voted 5 to 2 against a similar amendment.
The only recourse for opponents of same-sex marriage is to get enough signatures to get the proposed amendment on the ballot to let voters decide.

“This is a major defeat for the proponents of this immoral, anti-family measure,” said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.

“This is a classic bait-and-switch where anti-gay extremists want to repeal California’s domestic partnership law and prevent the legislature, the courts and the voters from passing laws to provide any legal rights and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their families."
Meanwhile, a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry is moving forward.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act passed a key committee late last month. The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It 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.

The marriage issue is also before the courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in March that law banning same-sex marriage violate the state Constitution. The issue could reach the California Supreme Court later this year.

posted by Anthony # 8:04 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 10, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) Support for same-sex legal unions in Minnesota has lessened among state residents over the past year, a new Poll found.According to the poll, 52 percent of adults in the state oppose same-sex unions while 38 percent favor them. The opposition increased 10 percentage points over last year.

Critics say the survey reflects a nationwide marketing effort as conservatives and religious groups try to sway opinions on the issue."The way the conversation is being framed is not a good way for our democracy to make decisions. It polarizes the issue to such a degree that the conversation becomes really stilted," said Ann DeGroot, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, which represents the state's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.The poll also found that 51 percent of those surveyed agree that a constitutional amendment is needed in Minnesota; 46 percent agree strongly.The poll surveyed 832 adults from April 30 to May 4.

The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, who has been pushing for the constitutional amendment, said the survey shows that people are thinking about the issue."I think this tells us that people are recognizing that this has an impact on our children, our workplace, our places of worship, our schools," Bachmann said. "This is more than an issue affecting a small percentage of the population.

This has the potential for affecting everyone."Poll respondent Rick Schwantes, of Willmar, is a husband and father of two. He is a "not overly religious" Catholic and he said he considers himself a Republican but does not fall into the conservative ideologies.But the 46-year-old Schwantes said there is no flexibility when it comes to same-sex legal unions. He also strongly supports a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage."It's a man-and-woman deal. There is a moral issue there," he said "This country is founded on choice. They've made their choice; that's the lifestyle they want to lead. But don't push it any further than that."Forty-six percent of poll respondents said they strongly oppose the idea of legal unions. Sixty-two percent of greater Minnesota residents broadly oppose same-sex legal unions, as to 73 percent of poll respondents who identify themselves as Republican. Sixty-two percent of those 65 years old or older oppose it.

Among Minnesotans between 18 and 24 years old, 57 percent support legal unions, the poll found.

Much like the issue of abortion, there seems to be less middle ground as the same-sex marriage debate mixes religious beliefs with politics, said Rep. Nora Slawik, DFL-Maplewood. Slawik is opposed to gay marriage but believes a constitutional amendment is not needed."

This is a struggle because supporting a constitutional amendment is now defined as a 'Christian' issue even though I might think that saying it's OK to hate somebody is a very un-Christian position to take," she said. "I wish their were a gray button to push."

The House has approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but it remains unclear whether the proposal will be heard this year in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, has indicated there is no need for a vote this year because the amendment would not be on the ballot until 2006.

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

May 10, 2005
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON, May 9 - Nearly a year after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, state legislators are again planning to consider a proposal to make such marriages illegal.

On Monday, Senator Robert E. Travaglini, a Democrat and the president of the Senate, took steps toward convening a constitutional convention in the fall; one issue that would come before it is a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

Senator Travaglini is a co-sponsor of the amendment, which received preliminary approval from the Legislature last year, too late to stop a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to allow gay marriages to begin on May 17, 2004.

But the amendment did not die. It has a chance to become law if the Legislature approves it in the 2005-2006 legislative session, and if it is then approved by voters in a referendum in November 2006. It is not clear how likely that is to happen.

Ann Dufresne, a spokeswoman for Senator Travaglini, said he still supported the amendment, or at least the principle of having the amendment work its way through the voting process.

"When he crafted the compromise amendment," Ms. Dufresne said, "it was recognizing that half of the constituents and half of the voters felt that there should be a definition that marriage was between a man and a woman, and half said there should be civil marriage" for same-sex couples.
"I think he was right in the middle with a lot of folks," she said. "First and foremost he wanted to give people the ability to vote."

But several things have changed in the past year.

For one, the opinions of legislators may have changed now that more than 6,000 gay couples have married, Ms. Dufresne and other legislative aides say. Some of those who supported the amendment may now oppose it, the aides say, out of reluctance to undo marriages that have taken place or out of a sense that gay marriage has not caused negative repercussions.
"We've had gay marriage now for a year," Ms. Dufresne said. "You can't dispute the fact that it's now become part of the dialogue."

Another sponsor of the amendment, Senator Brian P. Lees, the Republican minority leader, told The Republican, a newspaper in Springfield, Mass., that he would probably support the amendment, but that "everyone should review" it since it would deprive gay couples of the marriage rights they now have.

"That's why I'm willing to look at it," Mr. Lees told The Republican in February. He did not return phone messages on Monday.

Another difference is the composition of the Legislature. Last year, the House speaker, Thomas M. Finneran, a Democrat who opposed gay marriage, led a large group of the legislators who voted 105 to 92 to support the amendment. But Mr. Finneran has left the House, and the new speaker, Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat, supports gay marriage.

In addition, in special elections this year, at least three legislators in favor of gay marriage replaced legislators who opposed it, and several more won election to the House last November.
"The landscape of the House has changed," said Kimberly Haberlin, a spokeswoman for Mr. DiMasi. She said that Mr. DiMasi believed that after a year of legal gay marriage several legislators would see that "the world hasn't fallen off its axis."

There are other factors to consider, however. A group of opponents to gay marriage, including the Massachusetts Family Institute, is preparing a petition to put an amendment on the ballot in 2008 that would ban gay marriage and not establish civil unions. Some lawmakers who would oppose such an amendment might decide that the best way to defeat it would be to support the amendment establishing civil unions that the legislature approved last year, legislative aides said.

Legislators here are also aware that most of the rest of the country is not ready to support same-sex marriage, the aides said.

That could encourage some lawmakers to support a constitutional ban, Ms. Dufresne said, because to keep such marriages legal "may show that Massachusetts is out of step with the rest of the country."

posted by Anthony # 7:02 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 10, 2005 12:00 am ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) Nearly a year after it was created, a state commission to study gay marriage and civil unions, is finally preparing to get down to work.

The commission was created last May as part of a law passed to forbid the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. In banning gay marriage, the legislature held open the possibility of creating civil unions, similar to those in neighboring Vermont.

The committee was asked to examine all state laws that would need to be rewritten -- including child custody and inheritance statutes -- should the state choose to allow civil unions.

But the panel has met only a couple of times. In February a group of lawmakers accused the panel of dragging its feet. Then when it looked as though the commission might begin work its Republican chairman locked horns with the Democratic governor.

Commission members now are rushing to make up for lost time. They have organized four public sessions across the state and preparing a final report due Dec. 1.

But lingering questions over the commission's basic purpose has some wondering whether the panel can complete its work thoroughly or on time.

"The perception — right or wrong — that's out there now is that this is not a commission that is going to come up with anything," says Rep. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua.

Much depends on Rep. Tony Soltani, an Epsom Republican who professes to being nonplussed by his role as commission chairman.

"It came out of the Judiciary Committee so they went down the line and called me and said 'Would you do it?' and I said yes," he said. "All of a sudden I'm the chairman and all of this hullabaloo going on."

Soltani attributes the slow start to the lack of a staff and money to send out mailings and schedule meetings.

At its first public hearing, on Monday, one speaker said that he believes the gay marriage will harm society."Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, and hundreds report having had hundreds of lifetime partners," said Mike Geanoulis, of New Castle, N.H.
The Manchester Diocese sent a letter opposing any change to the law.

State Rep. Gail Morrison said the status quo costs her and her longtime partner thousands of dollars."With medical benefits, those who are married can take part in a plan for families," Morrison said. "We have not been able to."

At least one of the 15 commissioners, Dover paralegal Jack Fredyma, wants to focus not just on lesbian and gay couples, but households comprised of adult siblings and other family groupings. Fredyma has proposed a "partnership registry" that would include "extended families related by blood that cannot marry."

Lumping together sibling- and parent-child households with same-sex couples strikes some as distasteful and inappropriate.

"It's red-herring material. We are talking about relationships between committed couples," said Morrison, a Tilton Democrat who favors gay marriage. "I think it is distracting from the charge of the commission."

Similar questions came up in 2000 when Vermont was moving toward legalizing civil unions, said Tom Little, then chairman of the Vermont House committee that crafted the civil unions bill. To gays and lesbians, being thrown in with various nontraditional family groupings "had this sort of air or whiff of incest that to them was repugnant, and rightly so," Little said.

"The social or familial relationships in question are so fundamentally different and frankly the gay couples, the lesbian couples, don't want to have the same relationship between the two of them as they do with a mother or sister or brother or father. It's an intimate, romantic, lifelong, committed relationship that's fundamentally different."

Vermont did address some of the problems of non-gay family groupings in 2001 by creating "reciprocal beneficiary partnerships," but no one signed up during the first year.
In contrast, the response to civil unions for gays was strong and positive.

"All couples testified as to the stability afforded by the relationship, from the ability to form a lasting commitment recognized not only by the state, but by family, co-workers, friends and the community," according to a report by the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission.

Both sides of the gay marriage debate are represented on the New Hampshire commission, but its leaders tend toward the anti-marriage side.

Soltani, who spoke out for last year's gay-marriage ban, recently gave other commissioners copies of a book, "What's Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage," that describes homosexuality as an "unnatural lifestyle" and accuses gay Christians of "trying to twist the Scriptures to justify their sin." Soltani said his goal was to ensure commissioners got as much information as possible.
In response, Commissioner Ed Butler, co-chairman of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, passed out another book, "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."

"I would have hoped that the commission would be more balanced in its views on civil marriage," Butler said. "If you quickly look at people's voting history and stances relative to GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues, it seems that the commission is not evenly weighted."

The roster appears to support his view. Scott Earnshaw, head of the New Hampshire Traditional Marriage and Family Institute, was recently named commission vice chairman. Earnshaw says concerns about the effects of nontraditional partnerships on children give him "serious reservations" about recognizing them, but he said he believes all commission members are open to differing views.

Three other commission members (Sen. Jack Barnes, then-Sen. Russell Prescott and Rep. Paul Brassard) were sponsors of last year's gay-marriage ban.

In another defeat for New Hampshire gays, the Legislature will soon consider a new contract for state workers. The deal does not include benefits for same-sex partners — something the union has lobbied for, but which lawmakers have refused to approve.

It is nearly a year since gays and lesbians were allowed to marry in Massachusetts. Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex unions in 2000. Last month Connecticut lawmakers voted to allow civil unions, in advance of possible court decisions that would have pressed them to adopt marriage. Maine recently enacted an antidiscrimination law prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, credit and other areas based on sexual orientation.

Rather than covet what their neighbors have, New Hampshire's gay rights activists say they prefer to focus on their to-do list. But their longing is evident.

"We look to Massachusetts with — I can't say envy — but a recognition that Massachusetts couples are able to enjoy the rights and privileges and responsibilities that are available to other committed couples who've married," Morrison said.

posted by Anthony # 7:00 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 9, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Helena, Montana) Despite a court ruling that the Montana University System must provide benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian workers many same-sex couples remain without the insurance plans because of restrictions set in place by the plan.

Last December the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide lesbian and gay employees of the University System with the option of purchasing health insurance and other employee benefits for their domestic partners.

The ruling was the result of an ACLU lawsuit begun in February 2002 on behalf of two lesbian couples and PRIDE, Inc., a Montana based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization whose members include employees and domestic partners of employees of the University of Montana System.
The benefits program is to go into effect July 1.

But, Casey Charles, a University of Montana English Professor says the requirements for entering the benefits plan are "onerous" and "unreasonable".

To obtain health insurance benefits for a partner, the University System requires that couples prove, among other things, joint tenancy or joint home ownership for the last 12 months and that the partner is ineligible for other insurance. In addition couples must prove three of the following criteria: that they have joint ownership or lease of motor vehicle, have at least one joint liability, such as a loan or credit card, have mutually granted powers of attorney for finances or health care, designated each other as primary beneficiary in wills, life insurance policies, or retirement annuities, or meet the Internal Revenue Service definition of a dependent.

Charles, a board member Of Pride wants the commissioner of higher education to ease the requirements.

"We're trying to negotiate with the commissioner's office to rewrite the document to make it fair and reasonable," Charles told the Billings Gazzette. "If not, we'll be forced to go back to court."
"The bottom line here from our perspective is we want to prove we're domestic partners," Charles said. "But we don't want to have to do so much more than spouses do. That's unequal."
Even system administrators admit that the new requirements are a bit tough to meet.

"The criteria are relatively stringent," Glen Leavitt, benefits director for the Montana University System told the Gazette.

But, Cathy Swift, the attorney for the commissioner of higher education, said no one has approached her office with complaints, or made a request for negotiation.

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 9, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) Calling her "exactly the right person for the job," Vice President Dick Cheney raised an estimated $200,000 for the reelection campaign of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) in Denver on Monday.

Musgrave is the author of the proposed amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Just over 200 people paid between $500 to $4,000 to attend Monday's luncheon-fundraiser in downtown Denver.

Musgrave is one of a number of Republicans that Democrats believe is vulnerable in 2006 and she is building a war chest to stave off an attack.

Her chief of staff, Guy Short, said that as of March 31, there was about $422,000 in Musgrave's campaign fund. Prior to Cheney's speech, Republican National Committeeman Bob Shaffer told the crowd the national party will spend whatever is necessary to help Musgrave win a third term in her northeastern Colorado district.

Attempts by Republicans in Congress to pass the proposed amendment failed last July.

It was reintroduced in Congress earlier this year.

Cheney's support for Musgrave drew immediate condemnation from gay Democrats.
"These actions underscore the hypocrisy of the Bush administration which claims to support families but actually works against us," Eric Stern, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director told 365Gay.com.

"By raising money for Marilyn Musgrave Vice President Cheney is funneling cash into the campaign for the anti-marriage constitutional amendment," Stern said.

"Marilyn Musgrave has routinely placed her extreme political ideology ahead of the concerns of her constituents," said Stern. "Now Vice President Cheney is following her lead by choosing to pander to the Republican base rather than standing for principle."

Last August, during a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa, Dick Cheney was asked about the President's support for a proposed amendment to the US Constitution. Cheney said he thought the issue should be left to the states, prefacing the remark with "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with."

During the GOP National Convention when Republican Senate hopeful Alan Keyes accused Mary Cheney of being a "sinner" and a "selfish hedonist" Dick and Lynne Cheney were silent.

Following Dick Cheney's acceptance speech at the convention the Vice President's family appeared on the stage - all but Mary Cheney who had been in the hall for the speech. Her absence led LGBT commentators to openly question whether she was being hidden away.

During the vice presidential debate when the issue of same-sex marriage came up Vice President Cheney said that "people ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want."

Democratic VP candidate John Edwards replied saying it was obvious that the Cheneys loved their daughter and that "you can't have anything but respect" for them. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and so does John Kerry," Edwards said.

That night Cheney thanked Edwards for the "kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much."

But, when John Kerry brought up Mary Cheney's name during the last presidential debate with Bush the Cheney family went on the offensive. Within an hour of Kerry's remark Lynne Cheney accused Kerry of pulling a "cheap and tawdry political trick." The following morning the vice president called himself a "pretty angry father".

posted by Anthony # 6:58 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 9, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Spokane, Washington) The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says Spokane mayor Jim West's sexuality has nothing to do with allegations of child abuse.

"Three victims of Mayor Jim West's predatory and appalling behavior have already come forward and, based on what we know about pedophiles, it's almost certain there are many more," said NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman.

Last week the Spokane Spokesman-Review published an investigative report on the mayor and his use of a popular gay chat website.

West, a former sheriff's deputy and Republican leader of the state Senate before he was elected mayor in 2003, built his political career on conservative issues including a condemnation of gay rights.

"Some media reports quote people as saying this is a 'tragic' situation for West and imply that his conduct showed he was 'uncomfortable with his identity," said Foreman.

"Nonsense, Foreman, said in a statement Monday. "Pedophilic behavior is always wrong and has nothing do with sexual orientation. This man - whether he's straight, bisexual, or gay - deserves nothing but scorn. He needs to resign immediately."

In its report on West and the allegations of child molestation against him the Spokesman-Review printed online chat conversations between the mayor and young men to whom he offered internships. The chats were conducted by an investigator working for the paper but West apparently believed they were from young men.

West has admitted chatting on on line to gays but said he is not gay, that the people he chatted with were all adults and he denied the charges that he had sought out minors.

On the weekend the paper printed further allegations by City Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers that West had told her he had masturbated in his office while chatting on line. West has denied making the statement to Rogers, but LGBT activists question the linking of his sexuality with the charges of pedophilia and the timing of the paper's report.

The paper had been working for three year son the chat room story, but chose to run it only after the sexual abuse charges were made. It also came only days after the state's biggest employer, Microsoft, reversed course and announced it would supports gay civil rights in Washington.

Microsoft had been at the center of a growing storm after it was disclosed that the company had withdrawn its support for a gay rights bill shortly before it was voted down in the state Senate and after it had been threatened with a national boycott by conservative Christian pastor the Rev. Ken Hutcherson.

On Monday Hutcherson said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer "just goes the way the wind is blowing," and threatened a new action against the company but refused to provide details.
"You get enough pressure on him, he's gonna change,'' Hutcherson told KIRO television. "He's just proved to everybody that if you put enough pressure on Microsoft, they'll bend."

posted by Anthony # 6:57 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 9, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Brussels) The Belgian government may soon allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
Gay and lesbian couples in Belgium won the right to marry in 2003 but, the law does not provide for adoption. For the past two years LGBT rights groups in the country have been fighting for adoption rights.

In an article to coincide with Pride celebrations in Brussels the French-language daily La Derniere Heure said that Parliament will vote on the adoption issue later this month.
Kathleen van Brempt, the Flemish minister for equal opportunities, said that with in vitro fertilization and women who have had children in heterosexual relationships before entering into a same-sex marriage, gay couples raising children is a reality.

"Today, 12 percent of children grow up in gay, lesbian or bisexual families already,” she said.
Earlier this year in committee hearings on same-sex couple adoptions psychologists testified that children raised in same-sex households do about the same as those raised in traditional homes.

According to a recent study by the University of Ghent in Flanders, 42 percent of gays and lesbians in Belgium would like to have children. Among lesbians the figure climbed to 55 percent.

posted by Anthony # 6:56 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 9, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Charlotte, North Carolina) Several dozen members of a conservative Christian group disrupted Pride celebrations in Charlotte, North Carolina over the weekend.

Wearing red shirts, the members of Operation Save America, harassed people entering a city park. On the sidewalk the group set up a loudspeaker system to preach and play religious music in an attempt to drown out the Pride celebration.

Operation Save America had attempted to get the festival cancelled. The group complained about "overt sexuality" at last year's event. Charlotte City Council narrowly approved this year's Pride but imposed a number of conditions.

Operation Save America began in Dallas, Texas but was moved to Concord, North Carolina in 2003 by its leader, Philip "Flip" Benham.

That year Benham attended Charlotte's Pride festival and screamed throughout a mass commitment ceremony for about a dozen gay couples.

The group later staged a protest in front of the city's Metropolitan Community Church. At the time police described the group as "extremist" and warned Charlotte's gay community to take precautions.

This weekend there was a large police presence at Pride and although there were a number of verbal confrontations there were no arrests.

A similar protest, by another group, in Philadelphia last year brought charges of intimidation.
Four members of the group Repent America faced 47 years in prison for allegedly inciting a riot. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe called the charges an unreasonable restraint on free speech and dismissed the case.

posted by Anthony # 6:56 AM

May 9, 2005
New York Times
By NICHOLAS WADE
Using a brain-imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that men and women respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that homosexual men respond in the same way as women.

The two chemicals, one a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat and the other an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine, have long been suspected of being pheromones, chemicals emitted by one individual to trigger some behavior in another of the same species. The role of pheromones, particularly in guiding sexual behavior, has been well established in animals but experts differ as to what importance, if any, they have retained in human mating.

The new research may open the way to studying human pheromones as well as the biological basis of sexual preference. The study, by Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, is being reported in Tuesday's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Most odors cause specific, smell-related regions of the human brain to light up when visualized by a PET scanner, a form of brain imaging that tracks blood flow in the brain and hence, by inference, the presence of suddenly active neurons in need of extra glucose. Several years ago, Dr. Savic and colleagues showed that the two chemicals activated the brain in a quite different way from ordinary scents. The estrogen-like compound, though it activated the usual smell-related regions in women, lit up the hypothalamus in men. This is a brain center that governs sexual behavior and, through its control of the pituitary gland lying just beneath it, the hormonal state of the body.

The male sweat chemical, on the other hand, did just the opposite; it activated mostly the hypothalamus in women and the smell-related regions in men. The two chemicals seemed to be leading a double life, playing the role of odor with one sex and of pheromone with another.
Dr. Savic has now repeated the experiment but with the addition of homosexual men as a third group. The gay men responded to the two chemicals in the same way as did women, she reports, as if the hypothalamus's response is determined not by biological sex but by the owner's sexual orientation.

Dr. Savic said she had also studied homosexual women, and had gathered "very interesting and somewhat complicated preliminary data." Another researcher said that it did not matter that gay women were not included in Dr. Savic's final report because they do not respond in the same way as gay men do.

The report by Dr. Savic and her colleagues recalls a 1991 report by Dr. Simon LeVay that a small region of the hypothalamus was twice as large in straight men than in women or gay men. The PET scanning technique used by Dr. Savic lacks the resolution to see the region studied by Dr. LeVay, which is a mere millimeter or so across. But both findings suggest that the hypothalamus is organized in a way related to sexual orientation.

The new finding, if confirmed, would break new ground in two important directions, those of human pheromones and human sexuality. Mice are known to influence each other's sexual behavior through emission of chemicals that act like hormones on the recipient's brain and are known, by derivation, as pheromones. Hopes, by the fragrance industry among others, of finding human pheromones were dashed several years ago when it emerged that the vomero-nasal organ, a tiny structure in the nose through which mice detect many pheromones, has largely lost its innervation in humans.

Researchers interpreted that to mean that humans, as they evolved to rely more on sight than on smell, had no need of the primitive cues that pass for sexual attractiveness among mice. But a role for human pheromones could not be ruled out, especially in light of findings that women living or working together tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles.

Dr. Savic's work is seen by some researchers as strong evidence in favor of human pheromones. "The question of whether human pheromones exist has been answered. They do," Dr. Noam Sobel, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in commenting on Dr. Savic's report of 2001.

Dr. Catherine Dulac, a Harvard University biologist who studies pheromones in mice, said that if a chemical modified the function of the hypothalamus, that might be sufficient to regard it as a pheromone. She said the Swedish study was extremely interesting, even though "humans are a terrible experimental subject," but noted the researchers had used a far higher dose of the armpit chemical than anyone would be exposed to in normal life.

If human pheromones do exist, Dr. Savic's approach may allow insights into how the brain is organized not just for sexual orientation but for sexuality in general. "The big question is not where homosexuality comes from but where does sexuality come from," said Dr. Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health.

The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause or an effect of their sexual orientation. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that shaped which sex a person is attracted to. Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just be a consequence of straight and gay men using their brain in different ways.

"We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect - the study does not give any answer to these crucial questions," Dr. Savic said. But the technique might provide an answer, Dr. Hamer noted, if it were applied to people of different ages to see when in life the different pattern of response developed.

Dr. LeVay said he believed from animal experiments that the size differences in the hypothalamic region he had studied arose before birth, perhaps in response to differences in the circulating level of sex hormones. Both his finding and Dr. Savic's suggest the hypothalamus is specifically organized in relation to sexual orientation, he said.

Some researchers believe there is likely to be a genetic component of homosexuality because of its concordance among twins. The occurrence of male homosexuality in both members of a twin pair is 22 percent in non-identical twins but rises to 52 percent in identical twins. On the other hand, gay men have fewer children, meaning that in Darwinian terms any genetic variant that promotes homosexuality should be quickly eliminated from the population. Dr. Hamer believes such genes may nevertheless persist because, although they reduce descendants in gay men, they increase fertility in women.

Could Dr. Savic's technique be used as a way of assessing a person's sexual orientation? She said it had not be shown to have the specificity necessary for a test. Other researchers said that observing people's reactions to erotic images was a simpler way of doing the same thing, so the brain scanning technique raised no new issues.

posted by Anthony # 5:11 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 7, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Columbus, Ohio) Religious conservatives who succeeded in rewriting Ohio's constitution to ban same-sex marriage are pushing state lawmakers to make divorce more difficult and to ban gay people from becoming foster or adoptive parents.

The issues were priorities listed in a lobbying day by several groups last month.

"The conservative Christian community feels more empowered today than in the recent past," said Sen. Jay Hottinger, who introduced a bill creating "covenant marriage" last week. "The momentum they sense they have, they want to make certain it doesn't go away."

Ohio's state law banning gay marriage took effect a year ago. Its supporters say it was overshadowed by the even stronger constitutional amendment passed in November that bans civil unions for same- or opposite-sex couples.

The new covenant marriage bill says couples who want such a marriage must go through counseling and sign a contract saying they understand they would have to go through a yearlong "cooling off" period with counseling before getting a divorce in most cases.

The idea was inspired during the gay marriage debate, supporters said.

Hottinger, a Newark Republican, said problems with traditional marriage were among the chief arguments from opponents of both the law and amendment.

"Homosexuals said you haven't done a good job with marriage," said Chris Long, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Ohio. "Some of the things we're looking at are: what can we do to help marriage and families today?"

Three other states have covenant marriages, Hottinger said. His bill would apply to engaged couples and those who want to reclassify their existing marriage.

Opponents of the gay marriage ban dislike the idea.

The covenant marriage bill still allows divorce without a waiting period if there is adultery or abuse, but the abused partner would have to prove the abuse in court - the same situation that existed before no-fault divorce, said Tim Downing, president of Ohioans for Growth and Equality, an equal-rights lobbying group focusing on gay issues.

"It's a dressed-up bill to once again give women second-class status and to force women to be subservient to their husbands," he said.

Hottinger emphasized that the agreement is voluntary.

"This does not prevent individuals from being able to get a divorce," he said.

The effort to ban gay people from adopting or becoming foster parents hasn't gotten as far. Greg Quinlan, president of the Ohio Pro-Family Network, has proposed the idea to state Rep. Tim Schaffer, a Lancaster Republican whose office says he's still studying the issue.

A bill banning gay foster parents passed the Texas House, and a similar bill is pending in Tennessee.

"It certainly helps our case in Ohio to have other states who have done or are doing it," said Quinlan, who describes himself as a former homosexual.

Downing said banning gays from adopting and foster parenting would drive people and businesses away from Ohio.

State Rep. Bill Seitz, who sponsored the gay marriage law but said the constitutional amendment was too vaguely worded, said he supports covenant marriage because it's voluntary.

But he's "not too wild about" the adoption ban.

"To categorically say that children who may need to be adopted cannot be adopted by an unmarried person or a same-sex couple, I think is probably going farther than we need to go until all the kids who need to get adopted, get adopted," he said.

posted by Anthony # 8:26 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 8, 2005 12:00 am ET

(Vatican City) The editor of the Jesuit weekly America is leaving the magazine after the Vatican received complaints about articles he published on touchy issues such as same-sex marriages and stem cell research, according to Jesuit officials.The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a widely respected expert on the Catholic Church and the Vatican who was editor for seven years, is being replaced by his deputy, the Rev. Drew Christiansen, the magazine said in a statement.

Jesuit officials in Rome and the United States, who spoke on condition they not be identified, said some American bishops had contacted the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about articles in the magazine over the years that had presented both sides of controversies over sensitive church issues.

The Vatican has had a sometimes tense relationship with the Jesuits, some of whose members in the past have questioned papal pronouncements on birth control, priestly celibacy and the ban on women priests.The magazine had made a point of publishing broad points of view - including some that clashed with church teaching - irking some Catholics in the United States and Rome, the officials said.Some of the hot-button issues included gay priests, stem-cell research, whether Catholic politicians can be denied communion if they support abortion rights, and same-sex unions.

The magazine also wrote about a Vatican document that outlined the idea that divine truth is most fully revealed in Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular.

The document "Dominus Iesus" was issued in 2000 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith - the office that was headed by German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI last month.Critics complained the document could set back Church efforts to reach out to other Christians and believers outside the Church.

Reese is based in New York where the magazine is edited. He was in Rome for the election of Benedict, who had enforced a hard line on church doctrine and silenced theologians who diverged from it in his 24 years as Pope John Paul II's orthodoxy watchdog.

While in Rome, Reese met with his superior who mentioned there had been complaints about a couple of articles, a Jesuit official in Rome said. The official said Reese had left Rome with the idea he would resign.Any response to complaints from U.S. bishops or Vatican officials would be made by the Jesuit General in Rome, the Rev. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, and the 11 Jesuit leaders in the United States.

In the statement from newly named editor Christiansen, he noted that under Reese, the magazine often gave two sides of the debate on sensitive church issues - and that made it more relevant."

By inviting articles that covered different sides of disputed issues, Father Reese helped make America a forum for intelligent discussion of questions facing the church and the country today," Christiansen said.When contacted Friday, Reese said only that his tenure ends on June 1 and that he would move immediately to California and continue in his Jesuit ministry. He referred other comment to his news release.

In that release, Reese praised Christiansen, whom he had recruited in 2002.He said he was "proud of what my colleagues and I did with the magazine, and I am grateful to them, our readers and our benefactors for the support they gave me. I look forward to taking a sabbatical while my provincial (regional boss) and I determine the next phase of my Jesuit ministry."

An official at the Jesuit headquarters in Washington, the Rev. Albert Diulio, said Reese and his provincial supervisor had reached the decision together, and noted that Jesuits tend to rotate jobs every six or seven years.Diulio said he could not comment on any other reasons behind the change.An official with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declined to comment on the matter. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said she had no information.

The Jesuit order founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in 1540 is renowned for its intellectual rigor and its excellent teachers, scholars and scientists. The Vatican has at times taken aim at its independence.In the most recent publicized incident, John Paul named a temporary replacement to lead the order after the Rev. Pedro Arrupe suffered a crippling stroke in 1981, brushing aside Arrupe's choice for an interim leader in an unprecedented change-of-command.

Arrupe, who died in 1991, had pushed for the church to move for a more socially just world while remaining faithful to papal authority. But during his tenure, some Jesuits especially in the United States and the Netherlands challenged Vatican pronouncements on birth control, priestly celibacy and the ban on women priests.

posted by Anthony # 8:25 AM

by The Canadian Press
Posted: May 8, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Toronto, Ontario) Canada's Anglican churches will give up their voting and speaking rights at an upcoming meeting of the global church to appease conservative elements angered by their support of same-sex unions.

Members of the chief governing body of the Anglican Church of Canada voted 20 to 12 on Saturday to attend the Anglican Consultative Council's meetings next month in Nottingham, England as observers rather than full participants.

The concession came after intense pressure from same-sex opponents in the Church's so-called ``global south'' in parts of Europe and Africa - many of whom are adamantly against revisiting Christianity's age-old teaching against gay sex.

The head of Canada's only Anglican diocese to bless same-sex unions bemoaned the move as one that will only further divide the Church and undercut Canada's integrity by casting it as a ``punished schoolchild.''

``It will send a message that the Canadian church thinks it's done something wrong and I don't believe we have done anything wrong,'' said a disappointed Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster, B.C.

Ingham's diocese voted in 2003 to allow priests to conduct blessing services for same-sex couples.

``When you submit to pressure such as has been applied to us, it sends a signal of weakness that we will be subject now to more pressure, not less,'' said Ingham, fearing the move would lead to pressure for Canada to repudiate same-sex unions.

``It establishes a precedent that will be difficult to turn back from now.''

Canada will, however, be able to make a 90-minute presentation on how it arrived at its position on same-sex unions.

Episcopalian representatives from the United States have also agreed to withdraw their full participation upon receiving similar demands.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, has seven dioceses that approve same-sex blessings and provoked a global firestorm by consecrating the faith's first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.

Some suggest concession is a necessary measure to ensure Canada's position is not further restrained by an already highly divisive Church.

``Stamping my feet and saying you've got to do everything my way is not going to win me any friends and it's not going to get me my own way,'' said Chris Ambidge of Integrity Toronto, which represents gay and lesbian Anglicans.

``We are members of a church, we are members of a family and that implies a consensus and sometimes not doing what you want because your sister wants to do something different.''
``For me as a gay man, I am protected by all sorts of laws. In a goodly chunk of central Africa, being homosexual can get you thrown in jail for a long time. You could be persecuted for it,'' Ambidge said.

The move came one day after the Primate's Theological Commission suggested the blessing of same sex-marriages was a matter of church doctrine and not up to individual dioceses.
The matter should rest with the General Synod, the church's chief governing and legislative body, which will meet about this matter in 2007 and 2010, the commission said.

``We believe that this issue has become a matter of such theological significance in the Church that it must be addressed as a matter of doctrine,'' said the report.

Until that is determined, individual diocese will still be able to choose whether to bless same-sex unions, said Ingham.

The commission suggests same-sex blessings are not a matter of ``core doctrine,'' the central tenets of the faith as expressed in historic documents.

The recommendation will help determine whether the church has to go through the lengthy process of changing its laws to perform the blessings.

Any changes must be approved by all three levels of the general synod - clergy, bishops and lay people - at two separate meetings, three years apart.

The next meeting is in 2007.

posted by Anthony # 8:24 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 8, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Portland, Oregon) Opponents of same-sex marriage are calling on Multnomah County to reimburse their legal fees.

To win its lawsuit last month, the Defense of Marriage Coalition spent a total of $399,023.25, according to official records.

In a petition filed with the Oregon Supreme Court, the anti-gay marriage coalition claims its four experienced attorneys billed 2,477.68 hours during a yearlong legal battle over Multnomah County's March 2004 decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"This is a reasonable amount given the difficulties on this case, the experience of the litigation team, and the successful outcome," Kelly Clark, the lead attorney in the case, wrote in the petition.

The Oregon Supreme Court in April ruled that Multnomah County had no authority to issue licenses against state law, which allows only heterosexual marriage.

In Oregon under certain circumstances, parties that prevail in a lawsuit can get attorney fees from the losers. It is unclear whether the Defense of Marriage Coalition will meet the test to get the fees in this case.

Multnomah County Attorney Agnes Sowle said she could not comment because she had not seen the request for attorney fees.

Sowle concluded in a legal opinion last year that state marriage law violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians — refusing to give the couples marriage licenses would put the county on the losing end of a lawsuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Basic Rights Oregon, a leading gay-rights group, eventually sued the state, which had refused to accept the county-issued marriage licenses.
Multnomah County intervened to defend its actions, as did the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which countersued, claiming the county had no authority to issue the licenses.

In April, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that the 3,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County were invalid.

posted by Anthony # 8:23 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 9, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Sacramento, California) Gay marriage opponents get their chance to take a swipe at same-sex marriage this week in the Legislature, but their likelihood of success isn't great.

The judiciary committees in the Senate and Assembly will consider constitutional amendments Tuesday that would bar California from recognizing same-sex marriages and limit rights and benefits given domestic partners.

The hearings come two weeks after the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved a bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to authorize same-sex unions.

State law currently defines marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman. Voters in 2000 also approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

But a San Francisco judge ruled in March that those laws discriminate against gay couples and are unconstitutional. That decision, which is likely to reach the state Supreme Court, has helped fuel the drive for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, although that amendment is more likely to come from an initiative campaign than from the Legislature.

"I hope to convince my Democratic colleagues that it's the right thing to do," said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Murrieta Republican who is the author of one of the constitutional amendments up this week. "But if their past conduct is any predictor of their future behavior, we face a rocky road ahead."

Gay marriage opponents are planning an initiative campaign, anticipating that the amendments by Haynes and Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, will fail.

Besides barring gay marriages, the Haynes and Morrow proposals could undermine some rights and benefits given domestic partners by recently enacted laws. The two proposals would bar giving the "rights, responsibilities, benefits and obligations of a marriage ... to any other union or partnership."

"To the extent that folks wish to make domestic partnerships substantially equal to marriage they are undermining marriage," Haynes contends.

posted by Anthony # 8:22 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 5, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(New York City) The Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus.

Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight."Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.

Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.The practical effect of the provision — part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 — is hard to gauge.

It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.

But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry.""The part I find most offensive — and a little frightening — is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "

There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool."In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors — gay or straight — would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship."

But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex."

The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors," said one document.Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine."

With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful," said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. "

Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors."

However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.

Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules."

We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe," said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.

The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed" sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.

However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple."This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said. "I can't think of a scientifically valid reason — it has to be an issue of discrimination."

posted by Anthony # 7:33 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 5, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Baltimore, Maryland) A federal judge Thursday issued a restraining order blocking Montgomery County public schools from instituting a new health curriculum that seeks to provide positive information for LGBT students.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays filed suit earlier this week, accusing the school district of "denigrating" so-called former gays in the materials to be used in the course.

The suit accused the school board of "an irrational phobia of the ex-gay community,” and "urges censorship of ex-gay materials in our schools."

The group also claimed that because the course listed gay-positive churches and religious groups but not conservative churches opposed to homosexuality the school district was favoring some religions over others.

U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams agreed, saying that the program depicts some Christian sects, notably Baptists, as unenlightened and Biblically misguided.

"The court is extremely troubled by the willingness of the defendants to venture, or perhaps more correctly, bound, into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality and homosexuality converge," Williams said.

A pilot program to test student response to the course was set to begin in six schools on Friday. The program was to have included discussions of homosexuality and a videotaped demonstration of how to use a condom.

Montgomery's school board approved the new curriculum last November. It was to be aimed at students in eighth and 10th grades. County educators say the changes were needed to teach students about the dangers of unprotected sex and homophobia.

In his questioning of school system attorney Judith Bresler, Judge Williams implied the system was taking a a position of morals by urging sensitivity toward gays and lesbians.

"We seem to be tilting toward a particular view," he said.

posted by Anthony # 7:32 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 5, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(College Station, Texas) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Thursday said the public - not the courts - should make decisions on controversial issues such as abortion, the death penalty and gay rights.

He said too many courts are interpreting the Constitution as a document that evolves with society, but that he believes it should be interpreted as it was written.

"The Constitution is not a living organism. It is a legal document ... and like all legal documents it doesn't change," Scalia told about 1,000 people during a 30-minute speech at the George Bush Presidential Library Center at Texas A&M University.

Scalia said if the American people want to ban or uphold issues like abortion, the death penalty or gay rights, they need to convince their fellow citizens to do so and not leave it up to judges.
"The Constitution has nothing to say about it either way," said Scalia, who has discussed his stance in many other speeches.

When the public supported the right of women to vote, Scalia said, Congress passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Scalia said that would not happen today, but instead judges would simply read in such a right into the Constitution's equal protection clause, which doesn't address the subject.

"You should not use the Constitution as a means to enforce your own social views," he said.
The crowd at this generally conservative university greeted the speech with cheers and applause. Former President Bush, Barbara Bush, and three justices from the conservative Texas Supreme Court attended the speech. The former president introduced Scalia.

"Am I totally preaching to the choir here?" Scalia joked.

Other Supreme Court justices have argued the Constitution is a living document.

Scalia, who has been on the court since 1986, described himself as an "originalist," someone who thinks the Constitution means the same thing now as when it was first drafted.

Calling the idea of the living Constitution "terribly seductive" for judges, Scalia said originalism is the "only game in town."

"You either tell your judges to be bound by the original meaning of the Constitution or you evolve our Constitution the way you think is best," he said. "That is not a road that has a happy ending."

Scalia also criticized the increasing politicization of nominating and appointing federal judges.
"We want a moderate judge. What in the world is a moderate judge?" he said. "What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you'd like it to say?"

Scalia's positions on gay rights issues that have come before the high court have shown an extreme conservative view.

In the case that overturned sodomy laws Scalia dissented from the majority writing, "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

posted by Anthony # 7:30 AM

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: May 4, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) A new poll shows that the majority of voters in New Jersey support giving same-sex couples the right to marry and that they oppose any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The Zogby International poll was conducted for Garden State Equality, New Jersey's largest LGBT civil rights organization.

It shows that 55 percent of those surveyed favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40 percent were opposed.

The survey also shows that 61 percent oppose a constitutional amendment to block gays from marrying.

The poll’s 55-40% pro-gay marriage result is virtually identical to that of Zogby’s July 2003 New Jersey poll, whose result was 55-41%.

In New Jersey, an appeals court has been asked to decide whether the state Constitution's equal-protection provisions allow gays to marry.

“If marriage equality prevails at the state Supreme Court and national anti-gay activists think of coming here,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, “they will meet their Waterloo. New Jersey marches to a different drummer and the beat of equality. New Jersey is the state that doesn’t hate.”

The state already has a law recognizing domestic partnerships and granting those couples joint rights in filing state taxes and exempting them from inheritance taxes in the case of a partner's death. The law also extends the benefits given to state employees to cover domestic partners.

The poll, released today by Garden State Equality also shows that a comeback is possible for former Gov. James E. McGreevey.

McGreevey resigned after announcing last year he had an extramarital affair with another man. Despite the affair, McGreevey's administration was plagued with scandals.

The new poll shows that since leaving office his public approval rating has improved, even though he has shown no sign of an interest in returning to politics.

Forty-nine percent of those questioned by the Garden State Equality-Zogby poll said they would consider voting for McGreevey if he ran for office again.

However, 6 percent said they would never vote for him because he is gay. An additional 43 percent said he has forever lost their vote but that his being gay didn't contribute to their decision.

The survey of 804 voters was conducted April 12-14 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

posted by Anthony # 9:02 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: May 4, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Ottawa) Legislation to extend same-sex marriage throughout Canada passed second reading in the House of Commons Wednesday, but it is unlikely to survive until a final vote.

The Commons voted 164-137 to send the bill to committee. It must then undergo a third and final vote in the House before moving to the Senate. From there it needs royal assent.

That could take the better part of a month at best, and time is running out on the minority Liberal government. The opposition Conservatives are in position to topple the government, possibly as soon as next week.

If the government falls, the marriage bill would die.

Last week the tiny New Democratic Party said it would support the government in a non confidence vote on the budget. But, even with NDP help the Tories will be bolstered by the other small party, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, potentially giving them enough votes to force an election.

Wednesday, going into a party caucus meeting Conservative leader Stephen Harper suggested the Tories would use delaying measures to stall committee approval of the marriage bill to prevent it going to a final vote before the government can be toppled.

If the bill dies, or is defeated, it would not affect same-sex marriage in those provinces where it is already legal. Gay and lesbian couples can marry in 7 of Canada's 10 provinces and one of the three territories. Last week a suit to gain marriage rights was filed by gay couples in an 8th province.

Polls show that a majority of Canadians do not want an election. But, the same polls also show that, given the margin of error, the Liberals and Conservatives are in a dead heat.

The Conservatives have already pledged to block same-sex marriage throughout the country if they form the next government.

posted by Anthony # 9:01 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 4, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Massachusetts Democratic Party plans to endorse same-sex marriage next week, just days before the first anniversary of legal gay weddings in Massachusetts, the party's chairman said on Wednesday.

The party's 3,000 delegates will gather at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell on May 14 to add the endorsement to its platform, state chairman Philip Johnston told The Boston Globe."

I don't anticipate any serious debate about it," he said. "I think most delegates will support it. In this state, the more people get used to the idea, the more support there is."Gay weddings began in Massachusetts last May 17, making it the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples and sparking a national backlash.Voters in 11 states have since approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the number of states with such bans to 18. In addition, 24 states have enacted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

But a Boston Globe poll in March found that 71 percent of Massachusetts Democrats believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared to 35 percent of the Republicans surveyed.Party platforms have little influence on candidates' positions on issues, but they tend to reflect the widespread sentiments of a party's core membership.

Next week's vote will, in effect, codify a resolution passed by the state party committee last year. It reads: "We affirm our commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage, and all of its rights, privileges, and obligations, and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights."Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

State Democratic parties in Iowa and Colorado also have endorsed gay marriage. The national party platform doesn't explicitly endorse same-sex marriage, but it does support "full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation." It also opposes efforts in Washington, D.C., to pass a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage.

U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Somerville, who backs same-sex marriage, said the party should welcome people with different views on gay marriage."I understand where some good Democrats would agree with me on everything but this and I want them in the party," he said.

Martina Jackson, chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party's platform committee, said she held 25 hearings across Massachusetts leading up to next week's convention, and no one testified against the proposal to endorse same-sex marriage."We weren't sure what we were going to hear," she said. "There wasn't one place where we heard a negative, but lots of insistence that we do include it."

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 4, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) A former Vermont lawmaker who helped pass the nation's first civil union law urged Oregon lawmakers to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples.
But former Rep. Tom Little said supporting civil unions does hold political risks for some lawmakers.

Little said that some Vermont lawmakers lost their bids for re-election in 2000, but he added that re-election shouldn't be the focus for Oregon lawmakers if the civil unions bill comes to a vote.

"You have to be willing to take some pretty significant risks" to afford civil union rights and privileges to gays and lesbians, Little said.

The Vermont lawmaker came to Oregon Wednesday for the first hearing of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's bill to both create civil unions for same-sex couples and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Democratic governor's bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, but there is resistance in the Republican-controlled House.

The gay marriage debate in Oregon began just over a year ago, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted by the county.

Last fall, voters passed Measure 36, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Oregon's Constitution.

In April, the Oregon Supreme Court threw out the Multnomah County marriage licenses, saying it was not within the county's rights to issue them.

Kulongoski's bill would grant same-sex couples the same rights under civil unions that married couples get through marriage.

In response to civil unions, some Republicans have proposed a "reciprocal benefits" bill, which would grant a select list of rights — like hospital visitation — to any two adults who apply for them, including siblings and roommates.

Little said reciprocal benefits were also provided under the 2000 Vermont civil unions legislation, but that no one had filed for the benefits in the first two to three years that he tracked registration.

posted by Anthony # 8:59 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 4, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) State workers will vote on tentative contracts this month but LGBT union members may reject it because the unions failed to get benefits for the domestic partners of gay and lesbian workers.

The State Employees Association has sought the benefits when they negotiated with the state over the past decade. Four years ago the bargaining teams agreed on domestic partner benefits package only to see lawmakers refuse to endorse the contract until the provision was removed.
The Association attempted to get the benefits included this time, but when the $27 million deal was presented to workers the benefits were gone.

Anger and frustration is growing within the Lavender Caucus, an informal group of LGBT workers. The caucus will meet later this week to decide whether to vote against the contracts.
"It's about providing equal access to current and future state employee families," Neil Twitchell, the chairman of the caucus told the daily newspaper The Monitor.

Domestic partner benefits can help with employee morale and retention, Twitchell told the paper. He added that the state could even save money in the long run because many children of same-sex couples rely on state programs for uninsured kids.

New Hampshire is the only state in New England not to provide domestic partner benefits.
There was one glimmer of hope in the pact, however. It would permit gay or lesbian workers to take sick leave to care for an ill partner. Bereavement leave would also be allowed in the event of a partner's death.

posted by Anthony # 8:58 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 5, 2005 12:01 am ET

(New Paltz, New York) Villagers in New Paltz have delivered a stinging rebuke to the lone member of council who opposed same-sex marriage when mayor Jason West announced last year he would perform weddings for gay couples.

In village elections this week, Trustee Robert Hebel was not only rejected in his bid to return to council but he got fewer than 100 of the 700 votes cast, coming in third in a three person race.
Hebel, a Republican, had been on council for 12 years.

In February last year, West performed the first same-sex weddings on the east coast.

With the help of a conservative Christian law firm from Florida Hebel got the restraining order against the mayor. When the weddings continued under the direction of two Unitarian pastors Hebel returned to court.
West also was charged with violating New York State law and pleaded not guilty to 19 charges of violating New York State law. He and the two pastors, who faced similar charges, were later acquitted.

As much of a slap to Hebel, his defeat at the polls was also an ringing endorsement of West.
When the new board is sworn in, Democrats will hold three of the five seats. The Green Party holds the other two. All five trustees describe themselves as progressives.

West, also a Green, was elected in 2003 mainly with the help of students from the State University of New York which located in the sleepy hamlet north of Manhattan.

At the time, Republicans held the majority on council and claimed the students had hijacked the mayor's office. But, this time, few SUNY students voted - an indication that the town has moved to the left.

While all of the marriages performed in New Paltz have been invalidated, the result of the state refusing to register them, the question of gay marriage in New York State is headed to the Empire State's highest court. In March the New York Court of Appeals announced the issue could not jump a midlevel court. It is expected the case will reach the high court later this year or early in 2006.

posted by Anthony # 8:57 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 3, 2005 11:00 pm ET

(Augusta, Maine) An attempt by Christian conservatives to overturn Maine's new LGBT civil rights protections will fail a new poll of likely voters shows.

The Market Decisions survey indicates that 60 percent support the new law, signed by Gov. John Baldacci on March 31.

The legislation makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

In the past decade the legislature passed similar laws three times only to see them defeated in state referendums that were forced by the conservative Christian Civic League of Maine.
The League has already begun collecting signature to have the new law put to voters. The Market Decisions survey was taken last month, after the new law went into effect.

It shows that 36 percent strongly support the new law. Twenty-five percent somewhat support the change. Eight percent somewhat oppose and 17 percent strongly oppose the addition.

But, the company's Curtis Mildner warns that the poll may not on its own be a complete indicator of how people would vote in a referendum. A second pollster, Patrick Murphy of Strategic Marketing Services concurs with that assessment.

"It would be somewhat naive to read too much into a poll on gay rights in terms of how people will vote in November if there's a referendum," Murphy told the Bangor Daily News. Murphy points out that prior to the last elections that saw similar laws overturned surveys showed a majority of people supported the legislation.

posted by Anthony # 9:21 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 3, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Los Angeles, California) Faith groups across the globe will observe a day of prayer aimed at ending homophobia.

The "World Day of Prayer to End Homophobia" is being organized by Metropolitan Community Churches.

It will be held on Sunday, May 29.

MCC Moderator the Rev. Troy Perry said that local Anglican, Episcopal, Unitarian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ churches have joined. A number of Jewish temples that will hold observances that same weekend.

"Too often homophobia has been rooted in religious intolerance," said Dr. Perry.
"Discrimination against any of God's children is wrong."

Perry is a past delegate to the White House Conferences on Hate Crimes and AIDS.

"Homophobia contributes to higher rates of suicide in LGBT teens, higher rates of LGBT homelessness, lower wages for lesbians, and employment and housing difficulties for LGBT people," said Perry. "It still divides families, and results in hate crimes against LGBT people."
Almost 2,000 incidents of anti-LGBT harassment or violence were reported to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs in 2002. The FBI consistently ranks anti-gay violence as the third most frequent form of bias-motivated crime.

posted by Anthony # 9:20 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 3, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Baltimore, Maryland) An ex-gay group Tuesday filed a lawsuit to stop the Montgomery County Maryland Board of Education and Jerry Weast, its Superintendent, from implementing a new sex education curriculum that seeks to provide positive information for LGBT students.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) accuses the school district of "denigrating" so-called former gays in the materials to be used in the course.

“These materials, some of them published by gay advocacy groups, were approved as teacher resources by the School Board and its Citizens Advisory Committee,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director.

Among the items contained in the curriculum is a list of LGBT-positive religious groups such as Lutherans Concerned, Dignity for Catholics, Rainbow Baptists, and More Light Presbyterians.
“Advocating certain religions over others is discriminatory, said Griggs in a statement. “The School Board is providing a religious and biased point of view. Teachers should not refer students to specific religious organizations, especially without parental permission. This ‘resource’ has no place in school.”

The material also provides a quiz which and asks students if “loving people of the same sex” is “sinful.”

The answer given is that “many religious denominations do not believe this” and cites the Anglican Church of Canada as one example.

PFOX accuses the school district of ignoring those churches which teach homosexuality is wrong.
The organization also disputes a reference in the material that tells students "few say their homosexual attraction has changed.”

“There are no footnotes accompanying this statement, so it is a biased opinion of ex-gays voiced by a gay advocacy group," said Griggs.

The suit accuses the school board of "an irrational phobia of the ex-gay community,” and "urges censorship of ex-gay materials in our schools."

It wants the courts to force the school district to include ex-gay material in any courses that discuss homosexuality.

posted by Anthony # 9:19 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 3, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) Republicans Tuesday failed to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage on the November ballot after opponents called it an attempt to write discrimination into the state Constitution.

Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said recent attempts by gays and lesbians in other states to get legal recognition of their civil unions threaten the institution of marriage, which Lundberg said is clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman. He said voters should make the final decision.

"It's a referred ballot measure because we should let the voters decide. I'm not asking you to make the decision, I'm simply asking that we put this before the people of Colorado," Lundberg told the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee killed the measure on a 6-5 party line vote after Democrats said it was unconstitutional and would cost taxpayers to defend in court if it passed.

Cathryn Hazouri, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, said the measure would probably face a court challenge if lawmakers tried to put it on the ballot.

"It's just plain wrong to write discrimination into the constitution," she told lawmakers.
She said the title of the referred measure mentioned nothing about civil unions, which would also be excluded.

"Clearly this is a deceptive title," she said.

Lundberg said voters are smart enough to figure out what it meant.

Last year, Lundberg failed to get a majority of members in the Republican-controlled House to back GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's proposed gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Michael Brewer, spokesman for Equal Rights Colorado, said the state already has a statutory ban on legal recognition of gay marriage. In 2000, lawmakers and Gov. Bill Owens approved a "Defense of Marriage Act" restricting marriage to between one man and one woman.

Supporters said a constitutional amendment is needed because the statute could be easily overturned in court or by the Legislature.

Last November, 11 states outlawed same-sex marriage. Religious groups are supporting similar measures in about 15 other states over the next two years.

posted by Anthony # 9:19 AM

May 2, 2005

By REUTERS
Filed at 11:09 a.m. ET
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican's top family affairs official on Monday blasted Spain's law allowing gays to wed as a destruction of the marriage institution and urged Christians around the world to oppose such unions.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, also said adoption of children by same sex couples was ``moral violence'' against children and jeopardised their personality and stability.

In an interview with Fides, the news agency of the Vatican's missionary arm, Lopez Trujillo said the Spanish law allowing gay couples to marry had ``changed and falsified the very definition of marriage.''

The law, passed by parliament last month in the once staunchly Catholic country, allows same sex couples to wed in civil ceremonies and gave them the same inheritance and adoption rights as heterosexuals.

Lopez Trujillo said the law, along with the growth of couples living together outside marriage, was `` destroying, bit by bit, the institution of marriage'' which the Catholic Church teaches should be a partnership for life.

``Christians, even if they are state employees, are asked to become conscientious objectors because the laws we are speaking of are deeply offensive to morality,'' Lopez Trujillo said.
The Colombian cardinal said homosexuals deserved respect but allowing gay couples to adopt children ``destroys the future of children, (and) they suffer moral violence.''

``People say these children adopted by same sex couples are very happy. Maybe, when they are one or two years old. But when they are able to think for themselves, when they grow up, what a tragedy when they have to say 'my parents are two men, or two women'. Their personality, their stability is put at risk,'' he said.

posted by Anthony # 7:03 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: May 2, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Kansas City, Missouri) The state says Lisa Johnston and Dawn Roginski are exceptionally qualified to be foster parents, but an unwritten state policy prevents them from taking children into their home because they are openly gay.

Johnston has a bachelor's degree in human development and family, with special emphasis on child development. She's an educational consultant who also has worked for an organization that trains foster parents.

Roginski, who has a master's degree in counseling and another in divinity, works as a therapist and chaplain at a treatment center for young people with emotional and behavioral disorders.
The Missouri Department of Social Services cited the unwritten state policy in denying Johnston's application to become a foster parent. Johnston, with the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union, is suing the state.

"I've prayed a lot about this," Johnston said. "We just feel like, `Who is more qualified to be foster parents than us?'"

The two passed a home site visit and completed seven of nine training sessions before being told they were not qualified.

"I know there are lots of kids out there who need foster placement," Roginski said. "It's not fair to them either."

Chris Whitley, a spokesman for the DSS, said there are about 11,000 children across Missouri in foster care, and more foster parents are needed.

"There's always a need for good people who want to open their homes and hearts to kids who need help," he said Monday.

He said it's a long-standing practice of DSS to not "knowingly license as a foster parent any person who declares themself to be a homosexual." He declined to discuss details of the Kansas City women's case because of the lawsuit.

After Johnston's application was turned down, the case went to an administrative hearing, where state officials said they were not required to ask about sexual orientation, but would act on such information if they received it.

The officials also told Johnston and Roginski they could not become foster parents because children in such a home would suffer social stigma, the children's biological parents might disapprove, and because the two are not of reputable character because Missouri has a same-sex sodomy law.

"This is really not about the rights of the individuals who want to parent," said Peter Sprigg, senior director of policy studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council. "The purpose of this system is to serve the best interests of the child."

But the American Psychiatric Association says most children being raised by gay parents get over any problems that arise because of their home environment.

"Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well-adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households," the association said.

posted by Anthony # 7:02 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 2, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) What could be the last gasp of gay marriage foes in Massachusetts was heard by the Supreme Judicial Court on Monday.

The Catholic Action League and its leader, C. Joseph Doyle, want the court to set aside its ruling that allows gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The league's lawyer, Chester Darling, told the justices on Monday that same-sex marriage in the state should be halted until voters have a chance to decide the issue in a referendum.
The legislature voted last year to approve an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The measure must get approval again in this session of the legislature before going to voters in 2006.

A vote by lawmakers, expected this spring, has been put off until fall and even then it is uncertain if there are enough votes in the legislature to send it to the electorate.

The justices peppered Darling with questions, asking him to justify his position that the rights of Doyle and other opponents of gay marriage were being violated because they had not had their chance to vote.

Justice Robert Cordy disputed Darling's assertion that allowing the marriages to go ahead had stifled debate.

"It seems to me, if anything, it's been enlivened on this subject," Cordy said.

In contrast, the justices had no questions for lawyers for GLAD, the LGBT legal group that won the High Court ruling overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"They've had their day in court," GLAD attorney Michele Granda said after the hearing. "The [justices'] questions made clear they don't see how Mr. Doyle has been harmed in any way by the issuance of marriage licenses."

The court gave no indication when it might rule.

posted by Anthony # 7:01 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 2, 2005 5:00 pm ET
(Window Rock, Arizona) A ban on same-sex marriage approved by the Navajo Tribal Council last month banning same-sex marriage has been vetoed by Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr..
The national reservation extends into three states: New Mexico, Arizona and Utah.

The Tribal Council voted unanimously April 23 in favor of restricting a recognized union to that between a man and a woman, and prohibit plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.

Critics have said the measure was attempting to rewrite cultural history to parallel the clash across the United States between conservative Christians and gay rights activists.

"Same-sex marriage is a non-issue on Navajo land," Shirley said as he vetoed the legislation. "So why waste time and resources on it? We have more important issues to address."

Shirley suggested, however, he would support the Council if it wanted to put the issue before voters in the form of a referendum.

He said, in a prepared statement, that he strongly supports and encourages family stability but criticized the Council for not doing enough about domestic violence, sexual assault and gangs on the reserve.

Shirley went on to note that the marriage ban contradicts Navajo teachings of nondiscrimination.

posted by Anthony # 7:00 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: May 2, 2005 12:15 pm ET

(Washington) The Supreme Court will consider whether colleges can bar military recruiters from their campuses because of the Pentagon's ban on gays.

Last November the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 1994 federal law requiring law schools to give the military full access or else lose their funding.

The case involved 25 law schools who argued the statute infringed on the free-speech rights of the schools all of which had barred on-campus recruiting because of "don't ask, don't tell".

The schools formed a coalition called the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights to fight the law, known as the Solomon Amendment. Each of the colleges have nondiscrimination policies barring any recruiter - government or private - from campus if the organization unfairly bases hiring on race, gender or sexual orientation.

The Forum argued that not only were the college's rights to free speech abridged by the law, but the Solomon Amendment also violates US law.

"The Solomon Amendment forces the law school to violate its own policy and actively support military recruiters who come onto campus to engage in the very discriminatory hiring practices that the law school condemns," wrote lawyers for the Forum in their brief to the court.

The Bush administration contended in its court filings that equal access to campuses for recruiting is necessary to fill the military's legal ranks "in a time of war." It said the law does not violate free speech rights because schools are free to protest so long as they are willing to forgo federal research dollars, which amount to hundreds of millions at some schools.

Earlier this year, the House of Representatives urged the White House to appeal the lower court ruling.

In today's decision to hear the case the court said that arguments would be heard in the court's next term beginning in October.

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

May 1, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:20 p.m. ET
WINDOW ROCK, Ariz. (AP) -- The president of the Navajo Nation vetoed a measure Sunday that would have banned same-sex marriage on the Indian reservation.

The Tribal Council voted unanimously last month to pass legislation that restricts a recognized union to a relationship between a man and a woman, and prohibits plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.

Supporters said the goal was to promote Navajo family values and preserve the sanctity of marriage.
President Joe Shirley Jr. said in a statement released Sunday that he strongly supports family stability but the proposed measure said nothing about domestic violence, sexual assault and gangs on the Navajo Nation -- problems that are rampant.

''Same-sex marriage is a non-issue on Navajoland,'' he said. ''So why waste time and resources on it? We have more important issues to address.''

Shirley said the measure also goes against the Navajo teaching of nondiscrimination and doing no psychological or physical harm to others.

However, Shirley said if members of the tribe wanted to take a position for or against same-sex unions, he would support their decision to do so through an initiative rather than a Tribal Council vote.

There was no answer to a call placed to the council speaker's office late Sunday.
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 # 7:36 AM

May 1, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:07 p.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' highest court hears a bid Monday to halt same-sex couples from marrying until voters can weigh in on the contentious issue. A lawsuit filed by C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, claims the marriages interfere with voters' ability to participate in the debate on a proposed constitutional ban of same-sex marriages.

Around 5,000 same-sex couples have married in the state since the Supreme Judicial Court issued its landmark 4-3 ruling in November 2003 allowing gay marriage. The ruling took effect in May 2004.

In March 2004, the state Legislature approved a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Lawmakers must pass the measure a second time, either this year or next, before it can reach the statewide ballot in November 2006.

''What we're saying is that the dialogue, the robust debate that should be taking place, is being affected and shaped by the continuing marriages,'' Doyle's attorney, Chester Darling, said Sunday.

Justice Roderick Ireland rejected Doyle's petition last year but the full court is hearing his appeal.

Lawyers for Doyle, Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are to deliver oral arguments before the court Monday.

GLAD argues that Doyle has failed to show exactly how issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples interferes with his ability to vote.

''The right of gay and lesbian couples to marry poses absolutely no harm to Mr. Doyle, the Catholic Action League or anybody else,'' said GLAD attorney Michele Granda.

Ireland, one of four judges who voted to legalize gay marriage, said in his earlier ruling rejecting Doyle's petition that same-sex couples shouldn't be denied the right to marry based on the mere possibility that voters will approve a ban.

posted by Anthony # 7:35 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: May 2, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court which paved the way for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts today will hear arguments seeking to have its ruling set aside.
The Catholic Action League 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.
"The court declared an outcome before a vote was taken on the amendment ... the dialogue, the robust debate that should be taking place, is being affected and shaped by the continuing marriages," Darling said.

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 said.
Around 5,000 same-sex couples have married since the high court issued its 4-3 ruling in November 2003.

posted by Anthony # 7:34 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 2, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Seattle, Washington) Microsoft's LGBT employees in an open letter to company Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer say they are unconvinced that the computer giant was not influenced by a conservative Christian pastor to rescind endorsement of a gay civil rights bill in Washington.

The legislation was defeated by a single vote in the Washington state Senate last month after the company quietly pulled its support for the measure. The bill had already passed the House.

The Microsoft move followed a meeting between the company and the leader of an evangelical church located a stone's throw from Microsoft's Redmond headquarters. The Rev. Ken Hutcherson allegedly threatened a national boycott of Microsoft if it did not disavow itself from the gay rights bill that would have made discrimination against members of the LGBT community illegal.

When it came to light after the Senate vote, Microsoft's withdrawal of support caused a storm of protests from Washington's gay community and resulted in an email from Ballmer to all employees saying 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.

The email did little to appease members of GLEAM, Microsfot's LGBT organization. Nor did assurances from Gates that the firm may rethink whether it will support legislation in the future.

"Next time this one comes around, we'll see," Gates told the Seattle Times. "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."

But GLEAM is demanding that Microsft make its decision now.

"We are deeply concerned about the way the decision was made, the failure to anticipate its impact, and our inability to quickly repair the damage once it had become evident," the group said in its letter to Ballmer, made public on the weekend. "This shook our trust in executive management, and has left us feeling abandoned, depressed, and embarrassed for Microsoft."
GLEAM wants Ballmer to affirm Microsoft's support for gay civil rights legislation, acknowledge this year's neutral stance was a mistake and reaffirm the company's commitment to diversity.
The group, in its letter also called on him to make this position known to all employees, hold a diversity-awareness event for employees and hold mandatory awareness workshops for management on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.

At press time the company had not responded.

Meanwhile, US Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) also has trouble accepting Microsoft's account of the events which led to it pulling its support for the bill.

In a letter to the Microsoft general counsel Bradford L. Smith, Frank said he was "extremely disappointed by Microsoft’s decision to discontinue its advocacy of basic fairness for those who are victimized by discrimination based on their sexual orientation."

"I want to be clear that I am unhappy with the fact of backing away from your support for fair treatment for gay and lesbian people without being certain as to the reason," Frank wrote. "But I have to add that, having read [that] you denied that right-wing pressure was a factor, I am unconvinced. It is generally my experience that when highly intelligent people such as yourself say things which are implausible, some other reason must be involved."