by The Associated Press
Posted: August 31, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Attorney General Tom Reilly should certify a proposed 2006 initiative petition banning gay marriage because state residents "should not be denied meaningful participation in the legal definition of marriage," Gov. Mitt Romney said in a letter to Reilly on Wednesday.

The two-page note, written in advance of Reilly's expected certification of ballot questions on or before Sept. 7, argues the attorney general should not exclude the petition despite language in the state constitution that might be construed as preventing citizens from overturning court decisions.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 it was unconstitutional for the state to ban marriages between gays and lesbians, Romney cited the language of Article 48, which "permits the people to petition for a constitutional amendment that overrules a court decision when the court has declared a statute to be in violation of our constitution."
Two former Massachusetts attorneys general recently urged Reilly to reject the petition, arguing it would violate Article 48. It spells out the circumstances under which an attorney general should stop initiative petitions.

Romney argued the court ruling dealt with a matter of public policy, not a private case that Article 48 appropriately blocks from review via citizen petition.

"I write to urge you in the strongest possible terms to certify for submission to the people the ... petition," Romney wrote. "No matter how one feels about same-sex marriage, we should all agree that the commonwealth's citizens should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the legal definition of marriage."

He added: "At base, the proposed petition should be certified because it addresses a matter of paramount importance to the citizens of Massachusetts. Marriage is a fundamental social institution bearing a direct relation to the health and enduring strength of our society. To silence the voice of the people on a question of such great consequence would be a profound injustice.
"The citizens of the commonwealth should not be denied meaningful participation in the legal definition of marriage," Romney concluded.

The governor's office released the letter shortly after Romney held a news conference, his only public event of the day. His staff said he would not be available for additional comment until another news conference on Thursday. Reilly's office was reviewing the letter before offering any response.

Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said Romney is asking Reilly to ignore the law.

"The legal arguments against certification are very strong and very compelling," she said. "Romney is playing a political game here, not a legal one."

The Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of gay marriage took effect May 17, 2004. Since then, thousands of same-sex couple have wed in Massachusetts, the only state to allow marriages between gays and lesbians.

In early August, the Massachusetts Family Institute submitted the citizen's petition defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Former Boston Mayor Raymond L. Flynn's name was atop the list of 30 people who signed the petition.

In light of the court ruling, state lawmakers hammered out a compromise ban, which would allow Vermont-style civil unions. That version passed in one joint session of the legislature, called the Constitutional Convention, but must still be approved a second time. Romney opposes the compromise.

Legislators are scheduled to discuss -- and likely vote upon -- that measure on Sept. 14. Some who initially voted for the amendment now say they have dropped their support, in part because of the possibility of voters weighing in on the Family Institute petition.

If the Institute's petition were approved by voters in 2006, it would have to be passed by two more consecutive sessions of the Legislature before being placed before the voters again as a constitutional amendment in 2008. The legislative compromise is on track to go before them as a constitutional amendment in 2006.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:45 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 31, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Attorney General Tom Reilly should certify a proposed 2006 initiative petition banning gay marriage because state residents "should not be denied meaningful participation in the legal definition of marriage," Gov. Mitt Romney said in a letter to Reilly on Wednesday.

The two-page note, written in advance of Reilly's expected certification of ballot questions on or before Sept. 7, argues the attorney general should not exclude the petition despite language in the state constitution that might be construed as preventing citizens from overturning court decisions.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 it was unconstitutional for the state to ban marriages between gays and lesbians, Romney cited the language of Article 48, which "permits the people to petition for a constitutional amendment that overrules a court decision when the court has declared a statute to be in violation of our constitution."

Two former Massachusetts attorneys general recently urged Reilly to reject the petition, arguing it would violate Article 48. It spells out the circumstances under which an attorney general should stop initiative petitions.

Romney argued the court ruling dealt with a matter of public policy, not a private case that Article 48 appropriately blocks from review via citizen petition.

"I write to urge you in the strongest possible terms to certify for submission to the people the ... petition," Romney wrote. "No matter how one feels about same-sex marriage, we should all agree that the commonwealth's citizens should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the legal definition of marriage."

He added: "At base, the proposed petition should be certified because it addresses a matter of paramount importance to the citizens of Massachusetts. Marriage is a fundamental social institution bearing a direct relation to the health and enduring strength of our society. To silence the voice of the people on a question of such great consequence would be a profound injustice.
"The citizens of the commonwealth should not be denied meaningful participation in the legal definition of marriage," Romney concluded.

The governor's office released the letter shortly after Romney held a news conference, his only public event of the day. His staff said he would not be available for additional comment until another news conference on Thursday. Reilly's office was reviewing the letter before offering any response.

Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said Romney is asking Reilly to ignore the law.

"The legal arguments against certification are very strong and very compelling," she said. "Romney is playing a political game here, not a legal one."

The Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of gay marriage took effect May 17, 2004. Since then, thousands of same-sex couple have wed in Massachusetts, the only state to allow marriages between gays and lesbians.

In early August, the Massachusetts Family Institute submitted the citizen's petition defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Former Boston Mayor Raymond L. Flynn's name was atop the list of 30 people who signed the petition.

In light of the court ruling, state lawmakers hammered out a compromise ban, which would allow Vermont-style civil unions. That version passed in one joint session of the legislature, called the Constitutional Convention, but must still be approved a second time. Romney opposes the compromise.

Legislators are scheduled to discuss -- and likely vote upon -- that measure on Sept. 14. Some who initially voted for the amendment now say they have dropped their support, in part because of the possibility of voters weighing in on the Family Institute petition.

If the Institute's petition were approved by voters in 2006, it would have to be passed by two more consecutive sessions of the Legislature before being placed before the voters again as a constitutional amendment in 2008. The legislative compromise is on track to go before them as a constitutional amendment in 2006.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:43 PM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Sacramento, California) The California Senate is expected to vote later today, or possibly Thursday, on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

The phones of California senators were busy all Tuesday night as both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage made their respective arguments. Overnight the fax machines in Senate offices churned out thousands of pages from the two sides. And, early this morning lobbyists were at the legislature ready to buttonhole senators as they arrived.

If the bill passes it would the first time any elected state body in the nation has endorsed gay marriage.

The vote is expected to be close and follow party lines, but LGBT civil rights supporters are cautiously optimistic. "It'll be a close vote, but I think we'll have a victory," said Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors, Tuesday night.

But, the Campaign for California Families, which is fighting same-sex marriage in the courts, believes it may still derail the bill.

"We're generating heat upon them," said CCF president Randy Thomasson.

The real battle, both sides say, will be in the Assembly where a similar measure was defeated by four votes earlier this year when a quarter of the Democrats voted with Republicans to reject it.

At that time the legislation was considered dead - at least for the rest of this session. But, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) refused to give up. In a surprise move he attached the measure as an amendment to a marine bill that was already in committee in the Senate.
Last Thursday the bill passed its last hurdle before heading to the Senate floor.

Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, 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.

If the bill passes the Senate it would need approval from the Assembly then return to the Senate for a final vote. Even then it would need the signature of Gov. Schwarzenegger to become law.

The governor has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.

The issue of same-sex marriage also is being waged in the courts.

In March, a San Francisco a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has appealed the ruling. Earlier this month the California Supreme Court declined to fast track the case.

Both Lockyer and The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal had petitioned the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals courts and hear the case now. Once the appeals process is exhausted the case will likely end up in the high court in about a year.

By that time voters are likely to have weighed in on same-sex marriage. 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.

Already this week the legislature has passed two key LGBT rights bills. Yesterday the Assembly passed legislation banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and the transgendered in employment, housing and the delivery of goods and services. It had already passed the Senate. That measure was followed up with final passage of legislation protecting domestic partners of public employees from losing state retirement benefits upon their partners' deaths. Both bills Wednesday arrived on the Governor’s desk. So far Schwarzenegger has not indicated if he will sign them.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 5:03 PM

The Syracuse Post Standard

Treatment of gays, lesbians shows U.S. has much to learn
Tuesday, August 30, 2005

By Julie Smith Contributing writer

Coming to the United States after 31/2 years in Holland, I had no idea what to expect.
My father is in the U.S. Air Force, so we move about every three years. I'm an American, 16 years old, but I've spent only about nine years in this country.

When I arrived in July 2004 and I started to interact with Americans again, I noticed something was very different about the way gays and lesbians were treated.

One of the first things I noticed at school was the way people call others "gay" as an insult. I myself am not gay, but it's just so different from what I am used to. In Holland, it is legal for anyone to be with or marry anyone of any gender, and those people are always treated with respect.

In Holland, homosexuality is not a political issue. I arrived here during a presidential election campaign in which the candidates were using the issue as a way to get elected. It was a very strange thing to see.

People should be allowed to marry whomever they want. I have a few gay friends, and there is nothing wrong with them. They are some of my best friends ever. When I talk to them about it, they ask what gender has to do with whom you love enough to spend the rest of your life with.
But Bush does not support the marriage of people of the same gender. This is one of the main reasons that many of my friends in Holland and I did not want Bush to win the election.
During the campaign, I asked many people at my high school whom they preferred for president. All of those who supported Bush said they agree with his opposition to gay marriages. When I asked them why, they told me it was because of their religious beliefs.

I realized this must also be the reason that our government is against same-sex marriage. Our government hasn't quite reached the complete separation between church and state. This is why America still has not quite accepted same-sex marriages.

I believe high school students in Holland are more accepting of gays and lesbians because Dutch teenagers aren't shielded from world events as a lot of Americans are. A lot of the parents and schools here in America try to shield their children from what they think of as "inappropriate material."

What happens then is the kids get all their information from the media, which I can safely say is not the most reliable source. In Holland, parents and schools believe firmly in not hiding anything from their kids, so they know the facts about issues.

Holland and America are two very different countries. Each has its own way of handling certain things, but America needs to take a step back and take a good look at the world. We aren't perfect, and the rest of the world has some good ideas.

Julie Smith will be a senior this fall at Fayetteville-Manlius High School. Students interested in submitting a Voices column should call Chris Iven at 470-2132 or e-mail him at civen@syracuse.com

© 2005 The Post-Standard. Used with permission.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 5:00 PM

Posted on Sun, Aug. 28, 2005

BY SCOTT THISTLE
DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Sage Olson bursts through the back door and scampers across the kitchen into the living room. She launches from the carpet into the arms of her waiting mom, sitting on the couch.

The family dog, Lucky Boy, jumps up, licking both on the face, and a pair of cats compete for affection, rubbing themselves on pants legs while purring.

Sage and her mom kiss, cuddle and exchange greetings. After all, Sage, 7, hasn't seen her mom, Angie Nichols, since morning -- when Nichols left for work.

But when Sage calls for mom, two women often answer.

"If she yells 'Mom' and one of us answers, and it's the wrong one, she says, 'No, the other one,' " said Beth Olson, Sage's birth mom.

"Sometimes we can just tell by the inclination of her voice which one of us she wants," said Nichols, Olson's partner.

Olson, Nichols and Sage are the kind of nontraditional family that this year's Duluth-Superior Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Allied Pride Festival hopes to highlight. The festival's "We Are Family" theme this year puts emphasis not only on the GLBT community's sense of solidarity but also on the broader definition of family.

"What is a family, really?" Nichols asked. "A family really is about love, and if you have love and concern for each other, then you have a really good family that you can be proud of."

As in most families, time is a precious commodity -- so as Nichols continues a conversation with a visitor, Olson fixes Sage a quick bite to eat. The family is again running late for Sage's weekly soccer match.

Sage's dad, who was divorced from Beth Olson three years ago, is also actively involved in his daughter's life. He, too, will be at the game to watch Sage run up and down the field.

Married a year ago Saturday in Ontario, Olson and Nichols say they felt compelled to exchange formal vows to solidify their commitments to each other and to Sage.

Both Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia legally recognize same-sex marriages. The Superior couple also had a church wedding at Duluth's Peace United Church of Christ.
Nichols and Olson are also activists in the ongoing debate over the definition of marriage. Both are board members with Action Wisconsin, a GLBT group organizing to defeat efforts to amend Wisconsin's constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

NORMAL FAMILY LIFE

In many ways, the couple's family life is like any other Twin Ports couple raising a child. Both work at professional careers. Both share in Sage's daily care and both work at maintaining their home.

Daily activities at home include all the things other families do every day. From tooth-brushing to mealtimes to going to Sage's soccer games, what happens in their life would be a familiar routine.

"We operate in the community just the same as any other family, except for that every time we go somewhere, we know that people are going to figure it out," Beth Olson said.

Figure out that she and Angie "are not sisters," as she puts it. "They are going to discover, and then how are they going to treat us? How are they going to treat Sage?"

It's a fear and a frustration for the couple. On top of that is the time they spend fighting to protect their rights, standing up for what they believe in and helping to educate others.
"At the end of the day, we say to ourselves, 'What would it be like if we didn't have to fight for this stuff?' " Nichols said.

"We would have a lot of free time. We would have a lot more time to spend with Sage. We could just do things that are relaxing and free our mind, and have more time and money to put into our life that we want to have like everybody else has."

Overhearing Nichols, Sage echoes her, enjoying the attention: "Yeah, more time for me. Me, me, me."

To some degree, the couple is also hesitant to bare their lives for public consumption in articles like this. They want Sage to know she is special and her parents are special, but they wonder how that is much different than most families.

ACTIVIST CONCERNS

Beyond being the only same-sex couple they know of in their part of town, Olson and Nichols are political activists. The two were arrested in 2004 protesting President Bush's visit to Duluth.
"Sometimes you have to make decisions that are personal and based on -- hopefully, a greater good," Nichols said.

Those feelings aren't uncommon for activist gay or lesbian couples trying to raise children, said Tony Sheehan, board president of Action Wisconsin.

"In smaller communities, and particularly in places removed from larger cities where people interact on a more regular basis with quote-unquote nontraditional families, there are some hardships that these people have to deal with on a day-to-day basis," said Sheehan, who raised children with his male partner more than a decade ago.

He shuns the term "nontraditional," asking, "What is 'traditional' in America these days?"
Still, going against social convention is tough.

"It wears on people; I know it does," Sheehan said. "They are constantly having to answer questions or talk about why their family is just as important as traditional families."

The growing number of gay and lesbian couples raising families has inspired the phrase "gayby boom" in GLBT circles. Often, same-sex couples are adopting children with health or developmental problems, including AIDS and other serious illnesses, Sheehan said.

The trend counters the insistence by some Christian activists that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that its main purpose is the creation of children. But child-rearing is a natural desire for many human beings -- gay, lesbian or heterosexual, Sheehan said.

SEEKING ACCEPTANCE

Couples like Nichols and Olson -- who raise a child together and fight for the rights of themselves and others -- deserve acceptance and respect, Sheehan said.

His admiration is echoed by Duluth Mayor Herb Bergson.

Bergson made history in 2004 as the first Duluth mayor to sign a proclamation welcoming the Pride Festival to Duluth. He also took tremendous criticism, including hate e-mails and threatening phone calls to his office and home, he said.

Still, Bergson stands by the decision and this year will welcome the GLBT community to his city during a reception next weekend.

"Back in the '50s and '60s, it was about the color of the skin. And today it's about sexual orientation," Bergson said recently. "I suspect in 30 years it will be something else."
Nichols said she hopes equal rights for GLBT individuals won't take 30 years, but she acknowledges it could.

She and Beth Olson recognize there are many people who don't see things the way they do. Nichols asks those people to try -- even if just for a moment -- to see life from their perspective.
"What most people don't realize is we are in the midst of our civil rights movement," Nichols said. "We are in the midst of a marriage movement where amendments are being proposed that will further entrench discrimination against our families.

"These are real families, too."

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 4:51 PM

by Camille Bains, Canadian Press
Posted: August 30, 2005 8:30 pm ET

(Vancouver, British Columbia) A Vancouver woman was granted a divorce Tuesday after a B.C. Supreme Court judge decided the woman's husband had indeed engaged in an adulterous affair with another man, despite the current definition of adultery involving people of the opposite sex.
Justice Nicole Garson said she had been persuaded that she had the authority to make a change in the definition of adultery.

The traditional definition of adultery, developed through the courts, is voluntary sex between a spouse and someone of the opposite gender, to whom the person is not married.

Garson also granted the Justice Department's request to ban publication of the couple's name and referred to the case as P. versus P.

Christian Girouard, spokesman for the federal government, said the department had intervener status in the case to ensure the Divorce Act would be interpreted consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to reflect same-sex marriage legislation.

``In this case the court was being asked to rule on whether adultery also includes sexual behavior with a person of the same sex,'' Girouard said.

The judge's decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences across the country because of the increasing number of same-sex marriages that will inevitably lead to same-sex affairs, said Barbara Findlay, the woman's lawyer, who spells her name all lower-case letters.

``We argued, and the federal government agreed with us, that the court can make what is called in law an incremental change in light of current circumstances so that divorce will, from now on, be understood to be available where there is, for example, intimate genital contact between two people, one of whom is married,'' Findlay said.

Because adultery is not defined through federal legislation, judges hearing similar cases in other provinces will no doubt be persuaded by Garson's decision, she said.

And there are bound to be plenty of court hearings in other jurisdictions involving similar circumstances.

``It's likely to happen a lot because same-sex partners are predictably more likely to have affairs with other people of the same gender than with people of the opposite gender,'' Findlay said.

``It's going to be important for lesbian and gay men whose partners commit infidelity to enable them to get divorced immediately instead of having to wait a year.''

She also launched a constitutional challenge based on the Charter, saying the definition of adultery discriminates against gay and lesbian couples because it makes divorce less accessible to them compared to gays.

She said her 44-year-old client had been married for almost 17 years.

The woman filed for divorce after she discovered last October that her husband was having an affair with a man.

Garson was concerned that she did not have jurisdiction to grant a divorce and in February requested that the woman hire a lawyer to argue why the definition of adultery should include same-sex affairs.

The judge's written decision is expected to be released in two weeks.

©Canadian Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:20 PM

posted by Anthony # 11:16 PM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 30, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) The California Assembly has passed legislation banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and the transgendered in employment, housing and the delivery of goods and services.

The bill now heads to the Governor’s desk for his signature.

California law prohibited discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability or medical condition. But, it did not specifically name members of the LGBT community as a protected group.

Although courts have consistently interpreted the law as applying to gays civil rights groups in the state fought for a number of years to have the law amended to be fully inclusive.
The legislation adds sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status to the existing law.
The assembly passed the bill, authored by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) by a 47-29 vote. It passed the Senate last week.

“The California legislature has once again demonstrated its commitment to true equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians,” said Executive Director Geoffrey Kors of Equality California.

“By adding sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status, California will continue to be at the forefront of ensuring equality for all.”

Governor Schwarzenegger has 12 days to sign the bill into law, once it reaches his desk.
Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and condominium homeowners’ associations.

The final passage of the bill comes as the Senate prepares to vote, possibly as soon as Wednesday, on gay marriage legislation.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.

If it passes the Senate it would need approval of the Assembly and then a final vote in both houses before going to the governor. Schwarzenegger has not indicated if he will sign either bill.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 3:33 PM

Monday, August 29, 2005
Opinion
By Deb Price / The Detroit News

We have elections. What do we need courts for anyway?

Well, as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wisely explained in a 1940 ruling that overturned the convictions of several black men who had been coerced into false confessions, our courts are supposed to safeguard the constitutional rights of all minority groups from the overheated passions and prejudices of the majority.

"Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered or because they are nonconforming victims of prejudice and public excitement."

Now, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to hold September hearings on whether to confirm President Bush nominee John Roberts to the nation's highest court, its 18 members should keep in mind the special, protective role courts are supposed to play in our democracy.
The U.S. Constitution assigns the Senate the task of determining whether a president's choice is worthy to serve on the Supreme Court. Senators would be hard-pressed to find a better gauge of Roberts' fitness than whether he shares Black's vision of the judiciary as a safe haven for the oppressed.

Roberts' answer is certainly more important than how many degrees he holds, how many presidents he's assisted, how many court cases he's won or how many friends vouch for him.
The Senate last confirmed someone to the Supreme Court 11 years ago. Since then, the court has taken great strides toward living up to its role as protector of those of us who are "nonconforming victims of prejudice" because we're gay.

First, in 1996 in Romer v. Evans, the court struck down Colorado's attempt to make it harder for gay people than for anyone else to get government officials' help. Then in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the court erased state laws that criminalized gay sex.

In both 6-3 rulings, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor embraced treating gay Americans equally. Would Roberts have voted the same way? Would he be committed, despite the anti-gay winds blowing across much of the nation, to ensuring that the court continues down the road toward fully recognizing gay folks' rights?

The Judiciary Committee ought to press him for guarantees that he'd be responsive to gay Americans' needs. Yet the unfortunate reality is that the panel's 10 Republicans favor giving a green light to a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. All eight of the panel's Democrats voted against such a ban. At least one, Edward Kennedy, whose home state of Massachusetts has wed more than 6,100 gay couples, embraces gay marriage.

Would Roberts be an O'Connor or add a fourth vote to the anti-gay trio of William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? Roberts' paper trail gives pessimists plenty to fear.
Among its red flags is a memo in which he referred to the "so-called right to privacy" as if it doesn't exist. Dating from a groundbreaking 1965 Supreme Court decision, the privacy doctrine protects such things as a married couple's use of contraceptives, a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and a gay couple's right to sexual intimacy.

Optimists can point to a potentially more positive aspect of Roberts' background: A veteran Supreme Court litigator, Roberts prepped the gay-rights attorney who won the landmark Romer decision in 1996.

Roberts' confirmation ought to hinge on whether he wants courts to protect the downtrodden regardless of the shifting winds of public opinion.

You can reach Deb Price at (202) 906-8205 or dprice@detnews.com.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:11 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 29, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) The California Senate this week is expected to vote on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. With only two weeks left in the session lobbying by gays and by opponents to gay marriage has intensified and the vote is too close to call, despite a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The marriage bill is one of hundreds the legislature will consider with time on the clock running out.

Last Thursday the measure passed its last hurdle before heading to the Senate floor when the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the measure by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) On a 7 - 6 vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it last month.

The marriage bill was considered all but dead this spring when it was defeated by four votes in the Assembly after a quarter of the Democrats in the House voted with Republicans to reject it.

But Leno was undeterred and succeeded in having the legislation attached to a Senate marine bill. If it passes in the full Senate, the measure would then return to the Assembly, as part of the marine legislation.

Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, 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.

If the bill passes the Senate it would still need approval from the Assembly then return to the Senate for a final vote. Even then it would need the signature of Gov. Schwarzenegger.

The governor has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.

The issue of same-sex marriage also is being waged in the courts.

In March, a San Francisco a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has appealed the ruling. Earlier this month the California Supreme Court declined to fast track the case.

Both Lockyer and The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal had petitioned the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals courts and hear the case now. Once the appeals process is exhausted the case will likely end up in the high court in about a year.

By that time voters are likely to have weighed in on same-sex marriage. 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.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:08 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 29, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Salt Lake City, Utah) The case of a lesbian who wants to be a parent to a child born to her former same-sex partner will be heard by the Utah Supreme Court.

The issue before the high court on Tuesday will be whether the woman is legally entitled to a continuing parental relationship with the child when the biological parent objects.

Keri Lynn Jones and Cheryl Pike Barlow met in 2000 and were together about three years.
"Probably after we were dating six months maybe, we decided we wanted to have a baby in the next year so we spent a lot of time talking to our attorney," Jones contends.

Jones contends they intended to rear the girl -- now 4 years old -- together and took several steps to establish legal relationship for her and the baby. Barlow disputes that she ever intended for Jones to have a legal relationship to the child.

At the beginning both women shared in the joy of the birth. But then, Barlow said, she discovered Jones was having an affair with another woman.

"I did enter into this relationship thinking she and I could have a life together," Barlow said. "I was dead wrong."

After the breakup, Barlow, a former gay activist, said that she "left the gay lifestyle" and converted to an evangelical Christian faith.

Barlow said Jones has no legal ties to her daughter and, as the mother, Barlow believes she should decide if Jones can see the girl.

"I never elected a legal relationship with her," Barlow said. "Nor did I put myself in the position that she would have legal rights to my child."

Utah law prevented Jones from adopting the girl.

The issue before the state Supreme Court could test earlier common law court rulings in Utah that have allowed visitation by divorced stepparents. But the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down rulings that establish a biological parent's right to make the decision.

Last December, 3rd District Judge Timothy Hanson ruled that although Jones had no legal right by adoption or marriage, there was a parental relationship between the girl and Jones. He ordered visitation for Jones as being in the best interest of the child.

"This case is not about gay marriage. This case is not about gay adoption. What this case is about is whether or not a child is better off in this rather uncertain world with as many people as possible taking an interest in the child, both financially and emotionally," Hanson wrote in his decision.

The judge also noted that the couple traveled to Vermont to register as domestic partners.
Barlow's lawyer, Frank Mylar, said the case is a parental rights issue.

"You have somebody who is a fit natural parent and somebody who claims that they should have rights to a child, even though they do not have any legal relation to the child either by blood or marriage," Mylar said.

Jones' lawyer, Lauren Barros, said the core issue is the best interest of the child. If local legal doctrine is overturned by the Utah Supreme Court, the decision could affect any unmarried person raising and caring for a non-biological child without the benefit of adoption.

"I think that the precedent around the country also supports the rights of people who have a special parent relationship with a child," Barros said.

Both sides have the assistance of advocacy organizations. Barlow's position is being supported by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based conservative Christian organization. Jones is being supported by the National Center for Lesbian Rights in California.

Members of the Utah Legislature and the American Civil Liberties Union are paying attention to the case. There are indications that state lawmakers might introduce legislation dealing with "in loco parentis," which is Latin for "instead of a parent."

The possibility of winning before the Utah Supreme Court only to have the Legislature step in alarms Jones. She said there were family members, doctors, lawyers and many others involved in the birth and raising of the girl. "To all of a sudden to think that you're just going to be written off as a roommate and that I'm just some stranger trying to take away her child," Jones said.
Barlow said she doesn't want anything to do with Jones. Barlow said the dispute has been hard on her daughter. Barlow and the girl have moved to Texas.

"I feel as if my rights have been stripped away," Barlow said. "After a fleeting three-year relationship, I feel I'm now being prevented from taking care of her; I have to sit back and watch her suffer."

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:05 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 29, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Baltimore, Maryland) A Baltimore court will be told on Tuesday that Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory and should be overturned.

The suit was first filed two years ago by the ACLU of Maryland on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner recently passed away who would like to be able to marry one day.

The suit alleges that county clerks are violating the state constitution's guarantees of equality by not granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The couples involved in the suit live throughout the state and come from all walks of life.
John Lestitian, the widower in the case, was in a committed relationship with his partner Jim Bradley for nearly 13 years. Both practicing Catholics, the couples exchanged vows in a holy union ceremony in 1991.

Bradley died unexpectedly in 2003. His will which would have left his property to Lestitian lacked the signature of a second witness, making it invalid on a technicality. Without legal standing, Lestitian was forced into difficult negotiations with Bradley's family over the burial arrangements. Without a valid will, he also lost the home in Western Maryland the couple shared because state inheritance laws failed to recognize their relationship. Had the couple been permitted to marry, the property would have passed automatically to John by law.

Jodi Kelber-Kaye and Stacey Kargman-Kaye have been together 11 years and are now the proud parents of two boys, ages six and one.

The couple experienced the discrimination that results from the inability to marry when Kargman-Kaye was hospitalized for a life-threatening emergency at a local Baltimore hospital and he partner was literally pushed out of Stacey's room because the nurse refused to recognize the couple's relationship.

In May 2003, when Kelber-Kaye was giving birth to the couple¹s second son, they experienced similar treatment when Kargman-Kaye, herself a doctor, was shut out of discussions about the medical treatment of their prematurely born child during a time when Jodi was unavailable immediately following the birth.

Equality Maryland has been involved in educating church leaders since the beginning of the year. In February more more than 70 clergy members signed a friend of the court brief supporting same-sex civil marriages.

Monday, more pastors signed on following a meeting in Baltimore and area religious leaders.
"It's inherently unfair to me that members of my congregation who attend services every Sunday with their children are forced to go without protections that my wife and I take for granted," said Andrew Foster Connors, Minister of Brown Memorial Park Avenue Presbyterian Church.

Earlier this year Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich vetoed two gay rights bills. The Republican governor nixed the Medical Decision Making Act and a bill that would have eliminated an unfair property tax levied only on unmarried couples.

Ehrlich later said he would be prepared to support a version of Medical Decision Making Act in the future as long as it did not include a partner registry.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:02 AM

posted by Anthony # 7:00 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: August 28, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Vatican City) The Vatican is preparing to bar gays from entering the priesthood and is considering removing those gays who are already priests.

The new regulations for the priesthood were prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education and Seminaries - the body that oversees all Catholic seminaries.

The document was delivered to Pope Benedict earlier this month but was not made public because the Vatican did not want it to conflict with the papal visit to Cologne.

It is the latest attempt to lay blame for the child abuse scandal that for the past several years has rocked the church, particularly in America, at the feet of gays.

In the past the church has been silent on the issue of gay priests, believing the vow of celibacy that all priests take, was sufficient.

People within the church who are familiar with the workings of the Vatican say that it is doubtful the document contains a condemnation of homosexuality. Instead, it is expected that it has been written in careful language to appear pastoral rather than accusatory.

"It will not be an attack on the gay 'lifestyle'," John Haldane, professor of moral philosophy at the University of St Andrews, told the British newspaper The Observer.

" It will not say 'homosexuality is immoral'. But it will suggest that admitting gay men into the priesthood places a burden both on those who are homosexual and those they are working alongside who are not."

Whether the directive will be signed off by the Pope is not known. The document has already been rewritten several times, but Benedict has made the abuse scandal a key priority.

Next month the Benedict will send investigators to the US to gauge the scale of the scandal and to determine how many gay priests are in the priesthood.

Since his election to the papacy in April, Benedict has reaffirmed the Church's anti-gay stand. In June, he issued a stinging condemnation of gay and lesbian families.

Repeatedly driving home his point that marriage can only be a union between man and woman, the Pope called same-sex unions "pseudo-matrimony".

Before becoming Pope, Benedict had long history of attacking same-sex unions. As Cardinal Ratzinger he was the Vatican's most outspoken opponent of gay marriage.

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

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

He opposes contraception and the use of condoms to combat HIV/AIDS, advocates a diminished role for women in the Church and has called for mandatory celibacy for priests.

In 1999 he ordered two Americans, Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent, to end their associated with New Ways Ministry which provides educational programs for gay and lesbian Catholics nationwide.

Prior to the Pope's visit to Cologne, as part of World Youth Day earlier this month, European gay groups tried to arrange a meeting with Benedict in an effort to resolve their differences. The Vatican never acknowledged the invitation.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:28 PM

August 26, 2005

By REUTERS
Filed at 6:13 p.m. ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - Opponents of same-sex marriage face near-certain defeat in their bid to overturn a ruling in Massachusetts allowing gays and lesbians to wed, a result that could influence debate on the hotly contested issue across the country.

Just over a year after Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to allow gay couples to marry, political support is fading for a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and allow only same-sex civil unions.

Massachusetts lawmakers vote on the proposal on September 14 in a constitutional convention. Approval would pave the way for a final hurdle -- a state referendum on the amendment in 2006. But a senior lawmaker expressed doubts it would get that far.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said rejection was likely.

``At this point he thinks the way it looks now, the amendment will not proceed any further,'' said DiMasi spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

DiMasi is the latest Massachusetts politician to signal dying political and public support for overturning the ground-breaking ruling by the state's highest court that struck down a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Advocates say more than 6,000 same-sex couples have been issued marriage licenses in Massachusetts.

But they see more fights ahead that could determine whether other states follow Massachusetts's lead, as conservatives and Christian groups keep pushing for an outright ban on both same-sex marriages and civil unions in the state.

Many gay rights activists oppose civil unions, which lack some of the federal benefits of a legal marriage.

IMMINENT CHALLENGE

The biggest challenge could come from a separate initiative calling for a state referendum in 2008 to ban gay marriage and not allow civil unions. The state's attorney general must decide by September 7 whether to certify or reject that.

``We believe we are on rock-solid ground,'' said Kristian Mineau, president of the conservative Massachusetts Family Institute that is leading the initiative.

If it gets a green light, Mineau's group would need to gather 66,000 signatures in a petition supporting the ban. Then they must win backing from at least 50 lawmakers in two legislative sessions to put it on the ballot.

That means more standoffs with activists such as Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which is circulating its own petition of lawyers that says the challenge is legally flawed.

``We think the Massachusetts Constitution says pretty plainly that you cannot use a ballot initiative process to reverse a judicial decision. So we think we have a pretty strong argument,'' said Swislow.

Among her more powerful supporters is the head of the Boston Bar Association, Ellen Carpenter, who joined about 80 other lawyers in signing the petition before sending it the attorney general with nearly 50 pages of supporting documents.

``As far as I understand it, the provision cannot be amended to overturn a supreme judicial decision,'' Carpenter said. ``And that letter is signed by real heavy hitters in the Boston and Massachusetts legal community.''

But for some gay couples, like 37-year-old Amy Wyeth and her long-term partner Valerie who plan to marry in November, the frenzied debate is not enough to sway their wedding plans.

``It's been amazing to me that I have not encountered any prejudice or problems,'' said Wyeth, although she expressed some concern over the risk of the laws being reversed.

``It concerns me, but I also think that once psychologically
you have something in place, it's harder to take that away.''

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 2:09 AM

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

(Phoenix, Arizona) Despite his reputation as a liberal Republican, Sen. John McCain has announced his support for an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

McCain last year voted against amending the US Constitution, but in a statement released late Thursday McCain said that the state amendment "would allow the people of Arizona to decide on the definition of marriage."

A spokesperson for McCain said the senator released the statement after a meeting with backers of the amendment who asked for his formal support.

The proposed amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit cities, towns and counties from giving legal status to unmarried couples.

Proponents need at least 183,917 signatures by July 2006 to put the issue on the Nov. 7, 2006, ballot.

Gay activists say the statement was discouraging but vow a battle to keep the measure from passing.

Steve May, an openly gay former state lawmaker and now one of the leaders in the effort to defeat the proposed amendment said he was not surprised by McCain's stance, saying that McCain is positioning himself for a run for the White House.

"We have a year to convince John McCain and the rest of Arizonans about how harmful this measure really is,'' May said.

Backers of the initiative say the institution of marriage is at stake because they fear judges might eventually allow gay marriages.

Arizona law prohibits marriages involving same-sex couples, but they are not banned by the state Constitution.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 2:07 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 26, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Louisville, Kentucky) A special panel of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is appealing for the church's 2.4 million members to seek unity as they continue a divisive debate over gays and the Bible.

The panel urged the church's 2006 national General Assembly to make no changes to a 1997 law that limits clergy and lay officeholders to sex within heterosexual marriage, though liberals have submitted bills to repeal the rules.

Instead, the panel outlined a strategy in a 39-page report it says "is designed to help the church maintain peace, unity, and faithfulness to scriptural and theological principles while that debate continues."The issue of homosexuality, particularly in church leadership, has long vexed many of the mainline Protestant denominations.

Among Presbyterians, it has been one of the most contentious issues dividing conservatives and liberals. Some conservatives consider the differences in beliefs within the denomination so distinct they have discussed whether a time may come to split off from the church altogether.

The Rev. Gary Demarest of Pasadena, Calif., a co-moderator of the panel, said the panel's report "is not a time-buying tactic, but a call to the church to look at this ongoing debate in a different light."The report will be mailed to the denomination's 11,000 congregations next month for discussion, then go before the General Assembly next June.

The 20-member Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church began work in 2001, following decades of debate over how to interpret scriptural teachings about same-sex activity.Its report includes an extended theology section, but there is likely to be more discussion of recommendations on how to decide fitness for church office.

The panel affirmed the national church's power to set standards for officers' doctrine and conduct, but it said local congregations and regional presbyteries must apply the standards to individuals. The national church can review the adequacy of candidate screening but cannot override local judgments on "which matters are essential" and how serious any deviations are, the report said.

"No candidate perfectly conforms to the church's standards," the panel said.

The liberal Covenant Network of Presbyterians and conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee were studying the report and had no immediate response.

The Covenant Network and its allies have lost three attempts to repeal the 1997 gay marriage ban. Conservatives have been frustrated that congregations continue to defy that law and the denomination allows ceremonies to bless same-sex couples.Another dispute threatening to fracture the church erupted in 2001 when national church leaders decided it was proper that a talk at a denominational meeting suggested people are saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

That sparked the Confessing Church Movement, which declares "Jesus Christ alone is the way to salvation" and upholds tradition on the Bible and sexual morals.

In June, delegates from 85 congregations also met to lay the ground for conservatives to form a self-sustaining network or even quit the denomination if it doesn't make sweeping reforms.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 2:04 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: August 26, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The state's most powerful Democrat is predicting that the Legislature will reject a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.

A join session of the House and Senate will be held September 14 to consider the measure.

''Everybody anticipates that there won't be enough votes to pass this," House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi tells the Boston Globe. ''That seems to be pretty clear."

DiMasi is a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage and LGBT activists hope he's right. They were hoping for more time to lobby lawmakers.

The September 14 date was set by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini who authored the amendment last year as a compromise to one which would have banned both gay marriage and civil unions.

Although Travaglini has been generally supportive of LGBT issues his position on the amendment has frustrated activists in the state.

"Travaglini is a decent guy who knows gay people and cares about gay people. I know that he doesn't want to hurt us, but unfortunately it appears he is doing nothing to help us,'' Arlene Isaacson, a co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, tells the Boston Herald.

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 hours of heated debate. Many Democrats opposed the measure and many Republicans who object to gay marriage voted against it because it would permit civil unions.

No matter what happens in the legislature, a conservative Christian group is pushing its own amendment.

In June, the Massachusetts Family Institute submitted a citizen's initiative petition that would amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman and bar civil unions.
Gov. Mitt Romney is backing the initiative petition and says he opposes the version the Legislature will consider. He said the Legislature's compromise "muddied" the issue of gay marriage by legalizing civil unions.

The wording of the initiative is now being reviewed by Attorney General Tom Reilly. He has until September 7 - a week before the Legislature considers its version - to decide whether to certify it.

If it is approved, proponents would have to gather about 66,000 certified signatures to get it on the ballot.

Then the measure would have to follow a route similar to the legislative proposal: It must be approved by two consecutive Constitutional Conventions, before being put to the voters in 2008.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 2:01 AM

Chicago Tribune
Published August 25, 2005

Critics of gay rights insist that in opposing same-sex marriage they are trying to protect children. But when the California Supreme Court said this week that lesbian partners have the same responsibilities to their children as other parents, conservatives took a different line: If what's good for the kids is also good for gay rights, it must be bad.The court ruled in three different cases, and in each of them, as The Los Angeles Times put it, "delivered a ruling that guaranteed that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents." Those decisions elicited blistering comments from some conservative groups, which see them as another step down the road to same-sex marriage.

Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, a law firm that filed a brief on the losing side, said the court's action was "nonsense" and "has undermined the family." Said Paul Cameron, head of the Family Research Institute, "This is insanity writ large, and judicial arrogance writ large as well.

"In fact, this is not an instance of judges going beyond their rightful role to alter time-honored social arrangements. It's a case of judges applying established law to novel problems created by changing mores. Far from being crazy, the court's action was a sober effort to give priority to what should be our central concern: the best interests of the children.

The most significant decision involved Elisa and Emily, two lesbians who began a relationship in 1993. After moving in together, they decided to undergo artificial insemination, which each did with the other present. Elisa bore a son, and Emily gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl.

The couple proceeded to raise all three kids as their own. Each of the women nursed all three babies, and they gave them the same last name (their own last names combined with a hyphen). Neither went to the trouble of legally adopting the other's offspring, and they didn't register as domestic partners when California created a registry in 1999.They separated that year, and eventually Elisa refused to pay child support for the twins. A lower court ruled that because she was not a natural parent of the children, they were not her responsibility.

But the Supreme Court overruled that decision, based on a conclusion guaranteed to infuriate opponents of gay rights: "We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women."That view may sound like an affront to nature. But nature is only one factor in the making of families. Suppose a man were to move in with a woman, consent to her artificial insemination, be present at the birth of the resulting baby and raise the child as his own. In that case, would anyone say he has no paternal rights or duties?

Of course not. One critical element of artificial insemination is that the natural father is not treated as the father for any purpose. The father, in such cases, is the man who serves in the social function of father rather than the one who performs the biological function of providing sperm.

The court found that Elisa may not have been the only mother, but she was a mother. It quoted approvingly from a brief submitted by the California State Association of Counties: "A person who actively participates in bringing children into the world, takes the children into her home and holds them out as her own, and receives and enjoys the benefits of parenthood, should be responsible for the support of those children--regardless of her gender or sexual orientation."

Groups rejecting gay rights argue that kids do best in stable homes with married heterosexual parents. But even if that is true, it's no excuse for shortchanging children in homes headed by cohabiting homosexual partners. It's not illegal for lesbians to set up housekeeping, bear children and raise children in their own version of a family any more than it is illegal for straight couples to do so.

Given that some homosexual couples are going to serve as parents, legislatures have a duty to write laws that cover such modern conventions. And courts are obligated to apply existing laws, which may not have foreseen all contingencies, to protect vulnerable youngsters from falling through the cracks. That's all the California Supreme Court did here.

Some conservatives accuse the justices of defying logic, to the detriment of children, for the sake of an ideological mission. Well, look who's talking.

----------Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: schapman@tribune.com

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:47 AM

St. Louis Post Dispatch
By Jo Mannies
Post-Dispatch Political Correspondent
08/25/2005
Retired Sen. John C. Danforth said today that while he agrees that marriage is only between a man and a woman, there should not be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Speaking before a local gay Republican group, the former Missouri Republican senator said that the constitution - on the federal or state level - was not the place to deal with social values, whether it be gay marriage or abortion rights.

For that reason, Danforth said, he was among the minority in Missouri who voted against the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman and why he opposes the 1973 supreme court decision that said the right to abortion was inherent in the constitution.

Danforth added that he was concerned that some in the Republican Party had been engaging in "gay bashing" rather than advancing the cause of equal rights for everyone.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:43 AM

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

(Evansville, Indiana) An Indiana Congressman says that divorce is as dangerous to society as same-sex marriage.

Without specifically calling for an amendment to ban divorce or for federal legislation to restrict divorce John Hostettler (R-Indiana) suggested that the Christian right is looking at divorce as its next big issue.

Hostettler is one of the sponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex weddings.

S. Rep. told a gathering of clergy that divorce is as dangerous to society as gay marriage and that churches are essential to strengthening families.

“The picture of marriage is the picture of Christian salvation,” Hostettler said in a speech to the Indiana Family Institute at a Christian Church in Evansville.

“Any diminishing of that notion – whether homosexual marriage or any other degradation of marriage – is something we must fight in public policy.”

Hostettler said religious faith needs to have a greater presence in public policy decisions.
The Federal Marriage Amendment failed to get enough votes in July 2004 and was reintroduced this year.

Most LGBT rights groups declined to comment on Hostettler's remarks but privately speculated that if the religious right attempted to set restrictions on divorce it could drive many more heterosexuals to support the fight against the anti-gay amendment.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:12 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 26, 2005 8:00 am ET

(Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry in California passed its last hurdle Thursday evening and now heads to the Senate floor for a full vote - likely early next week.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the measure by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) On a 7 - 6 vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it last month.

The marriage bill was considered all but dead this spring when it was defeated by four votes in the Assembly after a quarter of the Democrats in the House voted with Republicans to reject it.

But Leno was undeterred and succeeded in having the legislation attached to a Senate marine bill. If it passes in the full Senate, the measure would then return to the Assembly, as part of the marine legislation.

"Allowing same sex couples to access one another's health care plans, make joint medical decisions, inherit one another's property, file joint tax returns, and provide for their children without fear of them falling into foster care should one partner pass away is not only humane but fiscally prudent," said Leno, one of six openly gay members of the Legislature.

Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, 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.

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

"Equal marriage rights will bring a much needed lifeline to our state economy," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.

"At a time when our state is unable to fully fund education, health care or sustain a balanced budget, we simply cannot afford the financial costs - let alone the moral costs - of discrimination in our civil marriage laws.

According to a study co-authored by the Williams Project, a think tank at UCLA School of Law, and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Same-sex marriage would have a significant positive impact on California's state budget - a potential gain of up to $30 million each year. The study also found that California would benefit from a boom in tourism.

The study concludes that if marriage licenses 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.

The issue of same-sex marriage also is being waged in the courts.

In March, a San Francisco a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has appealed the ruling. Earlier this month the California Supreme Court declined to fast track the case.

Both Lockyer and The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal had petitioned the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals courts and hear the case now. Once the appeals process is exhausted the case will likely end up in the high court in about a year.

By that time voters are likely to have weighed in on same-sex marriage. 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.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:10 AM

by Larry O'Dell, Associated Press
Posted: August 25, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Richmond, Virginia) The owner of a Web site critical of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's views on homosexuality did not violate trademark laws by using a common misspelling of the television evangelist's name as the site's domain name, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a lower court decision and ruled that Christopher Lamparello of New York City can continue to operate his "gripe site" at http://www.fallwell.com .

"The result proves this is still America," Lamparello said in a telephone interview. "Just because someone who's a lot more powerful than I am demands that I do something doesn't mean I should do it."

Jerry Falwell Ministries can be found online at http://www.falwell.com .

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ruled last August that Lamparello's domain name was nearly identical to the trademark bearing Falwell's name and could confuse Web surfers, despite a disclaimer noting that it is not affiliated with Falwell. The appeals court disagreed, citing the adversarial nature of the Lamparello's site.

"After even a quick glance at the content of the website ... no one seeking Reverend Falwell's guidance would be misled by the domain name http://www.fallwell.com into believing that Reverend Falwell authorized the content of that website," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert King.

"No one would believe that Reverend Falwell sponsored a site criticizing himself, his positions, and his interpretations of the Bible."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief supporting Lamparello, called the ruling a victory for free speech on the Internet.

"Trademark law must not be used to inhibit the freedom of speech in this powerful and important medium," said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU in Virginia.

Falwell's attorney, John H. Midlen Jr., said he will ask the full appeals court to reconsider the decision.

"We have argued from day one that the likelihood of confusion test relates only to the domain name itself and not to the content of the Web site, which is not known to the Internet surfer until they've already been confused by the domain name," Midlen said. "It is an argument we will be pressing forcefully to the full court."

The panel considered the "initial interest confusion theory" but ruled that it applies only when someone is trying to profit financially. No such motive existed in this case, the court said.
Lamparello's attorney, Paul Levy, said the ruling recognizes "the fundamental value of trademark law, which is to protect consumers against confusion in making their purchase decisions."

Lamparello took Falwell to court after the minister sent letters in October 2001 and June 2003 demanding that he surrender the domain name. According to the appeals court, Lamparello's site was getting only about 200 "hits" a day to more than 9,000 for Falwell's site.

"I find it odd that they want to take this site down so aggressively," Lamparello said of Falwell. "I think it's because he's disturbed by the content. Perhaps it does hit a raw nerve."

Among the headlines on Lamparello's site are "Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible" and "What commandment is Dr. Falwell breaking?"

Lamparello is not the first Web master to clash with Falwell over domain names. In 2003, Gary Cohn of Highland Park, Ill., surrendered the domain names jerryfalwell.com and jerryfallwell.com after Falwell threatened to sue him over trademark infringement.

Cohn said he created the sites in response to Falwell's public comments after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Falwell claimed feminists, homosexuals and abortion-rights advocates provoked God to "lift the curtain" of divine protection on America. Falwell later apologized.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:11 AM

by Glen Johnson, Associated Press
Posted: August 24, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) -State legislators voted Wednesday to meet next month for a Constitutional Convention aimed at debating for the second time a proposed amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts but allowing Vermont-style civil unions.
Members of the House and Senate have already given initial approval to the amendment, but the state constitution requires them to approve identical language in two successive sessions before the amendment can be put before state voters. That would occur in 2006.
Legislative approval has been thrown into doubt after some supporters in the initial vote announced they had changed their mind. The most recent is Rep. Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston, who was quoted this week as saying he will not vote for the proposal despite supporting it last year.

Petruccelli told Bay Windows, which features gay news, that legalized gay marriage has "made strong unions among people who have not had the opportunity until that time to get married."
The session on Wednesday, itself technically a Constitutional Convention, lasted barely a minute. The motion to reconvene Sept. 14 passed immediately on a voice vote. Afterward, Sen. Robert Havern, D-Arlington, addressed lawmakers from the rostrum and said the proposed amendment would be voted upon on that date.

The Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage in 2003, effective May 17, 2004. Since then, thousands of same-sex couple have wed in Massachusetts, the only state to allow marriages between gays and lesbians.

The decision, however, served as a rallying cry for social conservatives in last year's presidential race and continues to do so today.

In June, the Massachusetts Family Institute submitted a citizen's initiative petition that would amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Gov. Mitt Romney withdrew his initial support for a compromise ban, and is backing the initiative petition. He said the compromise "muddied" the issue of gay marriage by legalizing civil unions.

The initiative is now being reviewed, along with all other proposed 2006 ballot questions, by Attorney General Tom Reilly. If it is approved, proponents would have to gather about 66,000 certified signatures to get it on the ballot.

Then the measure would have to follow a route similar to the legislative proposal: It must be approved by two consecutive Constitutional Conventions, before being put to the voters in 2008.

©Associated Press 2005

Dicsuss

posted by Anthony # 1:08 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 24, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) The opening shots have been fired by both sides in the battle over a proposed amendment to the Texas state Constitution that would bar same-sex marriage, and the targets are thousands of voters.

Governor Rick Perry spammed the internet this week, sending out emails to 10-thousand Texans asking for their support for the amendment.In turn, an anti-amendment group sent out 10-thousand mailers, stuffing the mailboxes of Democrats accusing Perry and his fellow Republicans of attacking gay and lesbian families.

Perry's e-mail, sent yesterday, says: "That marriage is the union between a man and a woman is a truth known to each one of us already, and any attempt to allow same-sex marriages is a detriment to the family unit and hurts our state and nation."

The anti-amendment group, No Nonsense in 2006, paid for a mailing to past Travis County Democratic Party donors questioning the "unnecessary and divisive amendment."

The mailer said that Perry and "the Republican Legislature are running a shell game with an unnecessary, dangerous attack on our constitution and Texas families."

The proposed amendment would define marriage as a union solely of a man and a woman and bar civil unions in Texas.

State law already prohibits same-sex marriages, but supporters of the amendment say they fear the law could be struck down in court.

Gov. Perry signed the legislation sending the amendment to voters in June. Although his signature was not needed Perry said that the symbolism was important.

Following the signing the governor was asked at a press conference how he would tell Texas gay and lesbian war veterans that they cannot come home from the war in Iraq and get married.
"Texans made a decision about marriage and if there's a state that has more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live," Perry replied.

The remark prompted a demonstration at the capitol on July 1 by former gay servicemembers.

Last month the Lesbian & Gay Rights Lobby of Texas appointed former state Representative Glen Maxey to lead its charge against the proposed amendment.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:06 AM

The Boston Globe
GLOBE EDITORIAL
August 24, 2005
LISTING SAME-SEX marriages and commitment ceremonies in the traditional ''Weddings" pages of newspapers was controversial when it began a few years ago. But anyone reading about the gay couples in the newspaper cannot help but see how utterly ordinary they are -- or should be.

Wedding announcements often include smiling pictures and mini-biographies: where the couple grew up, their professions and college degrees, sometimes a bit about their parents or where they plan to take their honeymoon. In the past few weeks, The Boston Globe and The New York Times wedding pages have included a handful of gay couples who have had their weddings performed in Massachusetts or Canada, two places where gay marriage is legal. Other than tending to be slightly older than the other couples featured, there is little to distinguish the same-sex announcements from the heterosexual ones. Here is a selection:

A senior lecturer at Harvard Business School weds a manager of a clothing store chain. One is the son of a postal worker from Salem, Mass. The other's mother is the retired organist at a Savannah, Ga., Episcopal church.

A manager of human resources who works at Travelers Insurance Co. marries an assistant professor of human development at the State University of New York. One has a master's degree in public administration, the other has a PhD in psychology. Their parents are from Alabama and Texas.

A Boston charter school administrator weds a recruitment specialist for Teach for America seven years after the two met at a training institute in Houston. One has a master's degree in special education. The other is the daughter of a special education teacher in Oregon.

These six brides and grooms are of different races, geographic regions, and economic classes. They are as representative of the population as any other group. When they are not making history by getting married, they are no doubt working, paying taxes, eating breakfast, and grumbling about the weather like everyone else.

Fifteen months after the first gay marriages were performed in Massachusetts, opponents still insist that they somehow undermine society. Not content with a proposed compromise constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but approve civil unions -- which this page opposes as discriminatory -- they continue to roil emotions by pressing for government decrees that sharing a lifetime is something reserved for heterosexuals.

The stories of the gay marriages already happening are simply tales of commitment, hope, and love. They are not even a reason to stop the presses.
Discuss

posted by Anthony # 5:20 PM

GLOBE EDITORIAL
The Boston Globe
August 24, 2005
LISTING SAME-SEX marriages and commitment ceremonies in the traditional ''Weddings" pages of newspapers was controversial when it began a few years ago. But anyone reading about the gay couples in the newspaper cannot help but see how utterly ordinary they are -- or should be.

Wedding announcements often include smiling pictures and mini-biographies: where the couple grew up, their professions and college degrees, sometimes a bit about their parents or where they plan to take their honeymoon. In the past few weeks, The Boston Globe and The New York Times wedding pages have included a handful of gay couples who have had their weddings performed in Massachusetts or Canada, two places where gay marriage is legal. Other than tending to be slightly older than the other couples featured, there is little to distinguish the same-sex announcements from the heterosexual ones. Here is a selection:

A senior lecturer at Harvard Business School weds a manager of a clothing store chain. One is the son of a postal worker from Salem, Mass. The other's mother is the retired organist at a Savannah, Ga., Episcopal church.

A manager of human resources who works at Travelers Insurance Co. marries an assistant professor of human development at the State University of New York. One has a master's degree in public administration, the other has a PhD in psychology. Their parents are from Alabama and Texas.

A Boston charter school administrator weds a recruitment specialist for Teach for America seven years after the two met at a training institute in Houston. One has a master's degree in special education. The other is the daughter of a special education teacher in Oregon.

These six brides and grooms are of different races, geographic regions, and economic classes. They are as representative of the population as any other group. When they are not making history by getting married, they are no doubt working, paying taxes, eating breakfast, and grumbling about the weather like everyone else.

Fifteen months after the first gay marriages were performed in Massachusetts, opponents still insist that they somehow undermine society. Not content with a proposed compromise constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but approve civil unions -- which this page opposes as discriminatory -- they continue to roil emotions by pressing for government decrees that sharing a lifetime is something reserved for heterosexuals.

The stories of the gay marriages already happening are simply tales of commitment, hope, and love. They are not even a reason to stop the presses.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 5:17 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 24, 2005 8:00 am ET

(Oranjestad, Aruba) A lesbian couple has the right to register their marriage in Aruba, a court ruled Tuesday, rejecting a government appeal in a case that has exposed a cultural rift between Holland and its former colony.

Aruba's Superior Court confirmed a lower court's December ruling that the Caribbean island should register the marriage of Charlene and Esther Oduber-Lamers, who were wed in Holland in 2001."The Dutch marriage can be inscribed in the register," read the decision.

"Since Aruba is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it must comply with demands of the Kingdom."The Aruban government now has three months to take the case to Holland's Supreme Court, which it has promised to do."We give neither legal nor moral recognition to same-sex marriages," Ruben Trapenberg, spokesman for Aruban Prime Minister Nelson Oduber, said Tuesday.The women are currently living in Holland and were not immediately available for comment, but the Dutch group Lesbian and Bisexual Federation of the Netherlands praised the ruling."

It acknowledges that gays and lesbians in Aruba have rights," said Andre van Wanrooij, a spokesman for the Holland-based group.The women sued Aruba's government for discrimination last year after the Public Registry rejected their marriage certificate.

The government argued the civil code did not allow for same-sex marriage and that it would go against Aruba's way of life.Not having their marriage recognized meant Esther could not get health benefits from Charlene's job at the Aruban Department of Social Affairs or stay on the island for more than six months a year under Aruban immigration laws.Charlene, a 33-year-old Aruba native, and Esther, a 38-year-old Dutch citizen, fled the island for Holland in November after being harassed when they tried to register as a married couple.

Aruba, which lies off the northern coast of Venezuela, is an autonomous republic that forms part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Dutch statutes require that all members of the Kingdom - Aruba, Holland and the Dutch Antilles - recognize each other's legal documents, including marriage certificates.

Holland legalized gay marriage in 2001, but Aruban officials argue that Dutch law also grants the island the right to self-rule - permitting it to ignore Holland's legalization of gay marriage.Behind the dispute are deep cultural differences between Holland and Aruba, which shares more with Latin America than Europe.

While Dutch is the official language, most Arubans speak Papiamento, a Creole language that has absorbed words from Spanish, Dutch, English and Portuguese.

More than 80 percent of the island's 97,000 people are Catholic, and the largest number of immigrants come from Venezuela and Colombia.

Few people are openly gay on the island, and locals say many gay residents move to Holland rather than face persecution at home.
©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 8:41 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: August 23, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(Washington) Lambda Legal is calling for tough questions on issues important to the LGBT community to be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The organization has prepared 30 law-based questions.

They include Roberts' position on the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v Evans, the landmark Equal Protection case in which Roberts worked pro bono for the gay group arguing before the court.

Another question asks Roberts' position on Lawrence v Texas, the sodomy law overturned by the Supreme Court in a ruling setting out the Right to Liberty for gays. Additionally, Lambda wants to know Roberts' stand on the Right to Privacy.

“As an organization we have worked in this area of law for over 30 years,” said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal.

“The questions we have developed seek to draw out Judge Roberts’s judicial philosophy in areas critical to LGBT civil rights.”

Another question involves disability discrimination - one that could affect people with HIV/AIDS under the American's with Disabilities Act.

Other questions concern federalism, gender rights, legal precedents, Congress's power to strip federal courts of their authority, and separation of church and state.

Lambda has set up a online petition on its website, urging supporters to sign. The signed petition will then be sent to all members of the Judiciary Committee.

Roberts is considered for the most part an enigma by both liberals and conservatives. But, there signs that have raised the concerns of both.

While he worked on the gay rights case, LGBT groups, including Lambda, point out lawyers often take cases in which they do not personally agree. But, the case has also raised the hackles of some conservatives. One group withdrew its support of Roberts nomination of the case.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:06 PM

by The Canadian Press
Posted: August 23, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Calgary, Alberta) The United Church of Canada is offering what are believed to be Alberta's first same-sex marriage preparation classes in Calgary this fall.

But the inaugural seminar that was to be held this past weekend was cancelled after only one couple signed up.

The United Church is Canada's largest Protestant denomination and has been a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage.

Church officials in Alberta are not deterred, however - they say such classes are long overdue.
"We were waiting for the [provincial] government to recognize it's the law and back down a bit before we offered a program like this," said Lynn Maki, a spokeswoman for the Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada.

Organizers blame the political climate for the lack of seminar participants on the weekend.
"Part of it is that this legislation is very, very new," said Rev. Linda Hunter of Wild Rose United Church in northwest Calgary.

"And the other part is Alberta is particularly homophobic, and homosexual couples are still a little leery and suspicious."

Same-sex marriage has been a controversial issue in Alberta, with recent opinion polls indicating an even split.

The provincial government strongly opposes federal legislation passed in July allowing gay marriage, but recently conceded it has no legal avenues to prevent it.

However, within the governing Tory caucus, members are still debating what to do.

Ted Morton, the member of the legislature for Foothills-Rockyview, wants the province to have the power to "contain the negative consequences" of the federal legislation.

"While the United Church has the right to do this, [government] must protect the right of other churches to not do it, and that's the way it should be in a free and democratic society," he said.
"[Same-sex marriages] are a mistake for the long-term interests of Canadian society, but I don't think the discussion is over for Alberta."

Similar marriage classes have been held in Ontario and British Colombia for several years, but all eyes will now be on Alberta, a church spokeswoman said.

Organizers say they didn't plan the sessions to stir political waters.

"The thought is not to poke this in the eye of Calgary, saying we're the homophobic center of the universe, and now we have to prove the opposite," Ms. Hunter said.

"This decision is a manifestation of our commitment to the Constitution and social justice."

The program will delve into everyday matters that all couples face, church official Jackie Harper said.

Social worker Carolyn Anderson said many of the issues facing same-sex couples are similar, but there are some topics the "straight community" doesn't face.

Social challenges and issues surrounding starting a family and "coming out" are some examples, she said.

©Canadian Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:04 PM

posted by Anthony # 11:02 PM

August 23, 2005

New York Times
By ADAM LIPTAK

The California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that both members of a lesbian couple who plan for and raise a child born to either of them should be considered the child's mothers even after their relationship ends.

The court, stepping into largely uncharted legal territory concerning same-sex couples and parenting, issued decisions in three cases, ruling that women whose partners gave birth had parental rights or obligations in all three.

The cases involved a request for child support, a petition to establish parental rights and an attack on a lower court ruling issued before a child's birth that the child should have two women listed as parents on her birth certificate.

"We perceive no reason," the Supreme Court ruled, "why both parents of a child cannot be women."

Courts in about half the states have allowed members of same-sex couples to adopt their partners' children. Yesterday's decisions considered the separate question of whether the law could require former members of such couples to assume parental rights and obligations.
The cases all involved unorthodox conceptions, and the Supreme Court struggled to apply sometimes inapt state laws to them.

"While scientific advances in reproductive technology now afford individuals previously unimagined opportunities to become parents," wrote a dissenting justice, Kathryn M. Werdegar, "the same advances have also created novel, sometimes heartbreaking issues concerning the identification of the resulting children's legal parents."

The decisions broke new ground, advocates on both sides agreed.

"It is unprecedented around the country," said Joan Hollinger, who teaches adoption law at the University of California, Berkeley, "to have a state's highest court recognize that in the absence of an adoption, and even in the absence in some instances of a domestic partnership agreement, that two men or two women could be the full legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction." Ms. Hollinger submitted supporting briefs on behalf of the children involved.
But the rulings troubled lawyers for groups defending what they called traditional values.
"You've essentially begun to undermine and unravel the family," said Mathew D. Staver of Liberty Counsel, a law firm that submitted briefs arguing against the recognition of two same-sex parents.

The decisions may also have implications for same-sex marriage in California. The question of whether the state Constitution requires the recognition of such marriages is before a state appeals court.

"If these cases are any indication," Mr. Staver said, "it makes it look like they're tending toward recognition of gay marriage."

The only one of the three decisions that provoked dissents, and the only one that seemed to leave open the possibility of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, involved a woman identified as K. M., who provided an egg to her lesbian partner. The partner, E. G., gave birth to twin girls. K. M. had signed a form giving up her claims to any child at the time of the donation but, after the couple broke up, filed a lawsuit to establish her parental rights.

The Supreme Court, in a 4-to-2 decision, ruled for K. M. notwithstanding a state law that says a man who donates his semen to impregnate a woman who is not his wife is not a legal father. Justice Werdegar, dissenting, suggested that treating the donation of sperm differently from the donation of an egg "inappropriately confers rights and imposes disabilities on persons because of their sexual orientation" and so "may well violate equal protection."

The United States Supreme Court does not ordinarily hear cases considering questions of pure state law. But it could hear a claim under the federal Constitution's equal protection clause.
Diana Richmond, who represented E. G., said her client had not decided whether to appeal.
K. M., who declined to give her full name "to protect the privacy of my children," said in an interview arranged through her lawyer that she welcomed the decision.

"Next to the day my daughters were born," she said, "this is the happiest day of my life."
The other two decisions yesterday did not involve donated eggs.

In one, the court ruled that a woman identified as Elisa B. must pay child support to her former partner, who gave birth to twins while the women were a couple. The court made its determination based on commitments the women had made to each other and their treatment of the children each of them had while they were together.

In the third decision, the court ruled that a woman identified as Kristine H. did not have the right to challenge an earlier decision that granted her former lesbian partner parental rights, including putting her name on the birth certificate of Kristine H.'s child in the space provided for "father." The court based its decision on Kristine H.'s participation in the earlier proceeding.
Lawyers on the losing sides of the decisions said that the rulings would give rise to confusion between competing state laws, with someone said to be parent in California, for instance, not considered one if she moved to Texas.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:32 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 22, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) Campaigns for and against a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages in Texas began gearing up Monday as the Secretary of State's Office announced the proposition will be second on the November ballot.

If Proposition 2 is approved in a Nov. 8 statewide vote, Texas will join more than a dozen 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.

State law already prohibits same-sex marriages. The amendment would safeguard that law from judicial challenges by defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

With no major political offices up for grabs this cycle, opponents and supporters of the amendment will have to work hard to draw voters to the polls. A tiny fraction of Texans usually turn out for constitutional amendment elections.

Two years ago, just 12 percent of registered voters cast ballots in an election that gave constitutional authority to the Legislature to limit certain awards in civil lawsuits. About 7 percent voted in the 2001 constitutional amendment election.

"I want Texans to do better, and I feel like Texans will do better," Secretary of State Roger Williams said. "These are issues that will affect us all long into the future."

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute, which supports the ban, said his side's biggest challenge will be reminding people to vote because they won't see the usual deluge of signs and television advertisements for national or statewide political candidates.

"Our goal is to wake people up to let them know this election is going to occur and if you don't vote something could happen that you don't expect," Shackelford said, adding that opponents of the ban already are much better organized than his side is.

No Nonsense in November, a coalition of groups that oppose the ban, has set up offices in Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio and selected campaign coordinators for 35 of the state's largest counties. They've begun canvassing neighborhoods to encourage people to vote against the proposition and plan to enlist volunteers to call voters at home.

"It's a matter of the simple issue of educating voters that no matter where they stand on these issues, the constitution is not the place to be having a social debate," said Glen Maxey, director of No Nonsense in November.

Williams set the order in which each proposition will appear on the ballot by drawing slips of paper from a cookie jar. Each amendment became eligible for a statewide vote after passing both the House and Senate earlier this year.

Among the eight other propositions on this fall's ballot is one that would allow the Legislature to define interest rates for commercial loans and another that would authorize the denial of bail for a suspect who violates a condition of his or her release pending trial.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:29 AM

Monday, August 22, 2005
By Deb Price /The Detroit News

Struggling to describe the gigantic emotional difference being married has made in his life, Brad Davis compares it to one of the world's greatest natural wonders:

"It's hard to articulate. Like when you go to the Grand Canyon, why does it feel so awesome? It just does."

He and Duke Funderburke didn't exactly rush to the altar. Of course, that would have been impossible when the New Yorkers became a couple in 1963 -- or any time in the next 40 years.
But after the first Canadian provinces opened legal matrimony to same-sex couples in June 2003, Davis, now 68, and Funderburke, 72, were wed in Ontario.

After all these years, they didn't expect marriage to deepen their commitment or make them feel more secure. Yet it has.

Looking back, Davis says, "It was always hanging over both of us that one or the other might just leave.... That feeling just doesn't exist now."

What does exist is the sense that New York isn't being fair to their marriage.

Funderburke, who taught in the public school system on Long Island for a quarter-century, was blocked from adding Davis to his retiree health plan. So, with the help of the Lambda Legal Defense, he's suing the state Department of Civil Service to try to get it to recognize -- and respect -- the reality that Davis is his lawful spouse.

"Duke has educated thousands of children in a community denying us equal protection. It is very offensive," says Davis, who faces a $4,000 dental bill that would be covered for heterosexual spouses.

The couple's lawsuit is among the first legal challenges filed by the thousands of American gay couples who, like Joyce and me, married in Canada but aren't treated the same as married heterosexuals in our home states.

The New York case is especially promising because of the state's long history of recognizing out-of-state marriages, even ones not allowed within its own borders.

And it's moving ahead as key political support is building in the state. Democrat Eliot Spitzer, who as attorney general issued a nonbinding opinion that New York law requires Canadian marriages to be recognized, is the front-runner in the 2006 gubernatorial race. And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, has also voiced support.

Here's a snapshot of other recent marriage advances and ones to watch for:

• Washington's top court will rule on gay marriage any day now.

• In Massachusetts, where more than 6,100 gay couples have wed, a proposal to turn gay marriages into civil unions is expected to fail at a constitutional convention this fall, reflecting a huge surge in public support for gay marriage, Boston Globe polls show.

Meanwhile, the state's gay friendly top court hears oral arguments in October on whether Republican Gov. Mitt Romney can continue to cite a racist 1913 state law to prevent out-of-state gay couples from marrying. Look for a final decision as early as January.

Anti-gays are proposing a new constitutional amendment to ban future gay marriages that could reach voters in the 2008 presidential election year.

• Last month, Canada's legislature voted to extend marriage to gay couples throughout the country, following Spain's lead on June 30. They joined the Netherlands and Belgium, bringing to four the number of countries with gay marriage nationwide.

Marriage itself is a natural wonder, an awesome institution whose power is best understood from the inside. And one day, every civilized government will see the wisdom of not just allowing but encouraging gay couples to enter it.

You can reach Deb Price at dprice@detnews.com

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 4:58 PM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: August 20, 2005 12:01 am ET

(New York City) Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld has ended months of speculation and confirmed he's running for the GOP nomination for Governor of New York.

If he is successful and wins the gubernatorial race Weld would be only the second person in American history to have been governor of two states. The other was Sam Houston who was governor of Tennessee from 1827 to 1829 and Texas from 1859 to 1861.

"My juices are really flowing for this race, and I want to return to public service," Weld told the New York Times in a telephone interview on a business trip in Kentucky.

But, Weld's shifting position on same-sex marriage is not likely to win him support from either the Conservative Party - a necessity to get the nomination - or from the state's gay political machine.

The millionaire lawyer was elected governor of Massachusetts in 1990 and easily re-elected in 1994. He ran for U.S. Senate in 1996 but was defeated by Democratic incumbent John Kerry. Weld resigned as governor in 1997 when then-President Clinton nominated him to become U.S. ambassador to Mexico, but the nomination was blocked in the Senate.

Weld moved back to his native New York in 2000 and is a partner in an investment firm.
In 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the ban on same-sex marriage, Weld urged Massachusetts lawmakers to accept gay marriage, rather than civil unions, as the only way to legally comply with the court ruling.

In June he officiated at the gay marriage in Boston of his old college roommate.

Last August at the GOP National Convention Weld was still promoting same-sex marriage. "The recognition of gay marriage, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done, is the conservative point of view," Weld told Log Cabin Republicans.

But, this week, seeking the support of the Conservative Party, Weld changed his position telling Republicans he is opposed to gay marriage.

He confirmed his new position to the Times, saying that while he favored gay marriage in Massachusetts as the only way to legally comply with an order from the state's top court, other states, including New York, should offer civil unions instead.

Gay rights advocates and Democrats were quick to jump on the issue.

"His recent statements represent a complete and disappointing reversal of his original position," said Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle.

"The freedom to marry is about equality and New Yorkers are passionate about equality.
Governor Weld indicates that New Yorker’s are not ready for same sex couples to have the right to marry but our polling tells us otherwise."

"Flip-flopping and pandering to New York conservatives is no way to begin a gubernatorial campaign," said Democratic strategist Howard Wolfson.

Weld's newly found opposition to gay marriage is likely to come up on Sunday when he co-hosts a Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth fundraiser in Bellport.

But, while Democrats and gays are angry, Conservatives are not embracing Weld either.
Despite having the support of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the powerful Senate Majority Leader, Joseph Bruno is far from jumping on any Weld GOP bandwaggon.
A leading member of the Conservative Party, Bruno is miffed that Weld did not advise him in advance that he is running.

"If you were thinking of running for governor of New York State, would you make a phone call?" Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno told reporters.

"I've never heard from him. I don't know ... what he's doing, or what he's about, or where he lives. You know, if I haven't heard from him, he's not going to hear from me."

Bruno and other Conservatives reportedly believe Weld is too liberal and too gay-friendly to get their support.

So far State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is the only Democrat seeking his party's nomination for Governor. Spitzer is already on record as supporting same-sex marriage, a position that is likely to earn him the coveted Pride Agenda endorsement.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:06 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 21, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Montgomery, Alabama) With Alabamians scheduled to vote next year on banning same-sex marriages, a gay rights group is stepping up its visibility by opening offices in Birmingham and Montgomery.

"In order to change the hearts and minds of people, we have to be visible," said Howard Bayless of Birmingham, chair of Equality Alabama.Equality Alabama opened an office in Birmingham in April and one in Montgomery in July. The Montgomery office is in a refurbished house on historic Perry Street, just down the street from the homes of Gov. Bob Riley and John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition.

Both pushed for a constitutional amendment which, if approved by Alabama voters next year, will fortify Alabama's statutory ban on same-sex marriages by making it part of the state constitution.The location of the office down the street from Riley's and Giles' homes is a coincidence, but it has sparked plenty of laughs at Equality Alabama.

"The governor and Mr. Giles have to drive past it every day," Bayless said.

When asked about the office, Riley said it was a surprise to him."I have never noticed it," he said.Giles is very much aware of it. When the office opened in July, he ran a picture of it in his organization's e-mailed newsletter.

Giles said Equality Alabama has every right to open an office in the capital city, but he wanted his members to be aware of the group's increased activity, particularly with the vote coming up June 6, 2006, on the same-sex marriage ban."Complacency is always your worst enemy in any competitive environment," he said.

Giles and Bayless both predict the constitutional amendment will pass in a state that's known as "the buckle of the Bible belt.""This is a highly charged issue among Alabama evangelicals - to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage," Giles said.

Bayless said too much is being made of the constitutional amendment because Equality Alabama doesn't have gay marriage on its agenda. "We are working on discrimination in employment and discrimination in housing," he said.

Equality Alabama is a statewide educational organization that was created by the merger of several smaller groups. Bayless said the group's increased activity was sparked, in part, by what the group perceived as a growing anti-gay sentiment in the Legislature. Besides approving the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the Legislature considered - but did not pass - bills which would have prohibited gays from adopting children and barred public libraries from purchasing books that portrayed homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

Opening offices is not the only action the gay and lesbian community has taken to become more visible. Some members of Equality Alabama have formed a political action committee called the Equality Fund. A campaign finance report they filed in January showed they had raised $8,332 to use toward next year's elections.

A Day of Equality celebration is scheduled Sept. 10 at the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center, and more public functions are slated through the fall.Ken Baker of Montgomery, one of the volunteers who helped refurbish the new office, said increased visibility is the key to changing public opinion.

"The South is the only part of the country where the majority of the people say they don't know someone who is gay or lesbian," Baker said.Bayless said getting gay Alabamians to be open with their neighbors and co-workers is difficult because it's easier to keep quiet."

A lot of folks have demonized us and created a picture of us that's untrue," he said. "We are not trying to convert people. We are just trying to live our lives."
©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:04 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 21, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Oranjestad, Aruba) When two women tried to register as a married couple in Aruba last year, people on this Dutch island threw rocks at them, slashed their car tires and protested against gay unions outside Parliament.

The hostility eventually led Charlene and Esther Oduber-Lamers to flee the Caribbean territory, which refused to recognize their marriage even though the couple legally wed in the Netherlands four years ago.

"I couldn't sleep anymore," Charlene, a 33-year-old Aruba native, said in a phone interview from Holland, where the couple has lived since November. "I felt like maybe they wanted to kill us."

The strong emotions ignited by the couple's legal fight seeking to force Aruba's government to recognize their marriage has underlined a deep cultural rift between liberal Holland and its conservative former colony.

"If we accept gay marriage, would we next have to accept Holland's marijuana bars and euthanasia?" government spokesman Ruben Trapenberg said. "They have their culture, we have ours."

The case was a leading topic of discussion on Aruba until recently, when it was eclipsed by the search for Natalee Holloway, an Alabama teenager who vanished May 30 after leaving a bar with three local men on the final night of a high school graduation trip to the island.
After the Public Registry rejected the Oduber-Lamers' marriage certificate, they filed a lawsuit charging Aruba's government with discrimination. An island court ruled their union should be recognized.

The government appealed, and a ruling is expected Tuesday. Authorities vow to pursue the matter to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands if necessary, arguing that the idea of gay marriage strikes at the very heart of Aruban life.

Aruba, lying just off the Venezuela's northern coast, was once a Dutch colony but is now an autonomous republic within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Dutch law requires the kingdom's three parts _ the Netherlands, Aruba and the Dutch Antilles _ to recognize each other's legal documents, including marriage certificates. But Aruba's government contends the law also grants the island self-rule _ and thus it should be permitted to ignore same-sex marriages from the Netherlands, which legalized such unions in 2001.

"We can't let this become a precedent," said Hendrik Croes, a lawyer for Aruba's government. "Gay marriage is against the civil code and Aruban morals."

Despite strong ties to the Netherlands, which is one of Europe's most liberal nations in social mores, Aruba is more culturally in tune with Latin America.

While Dutch is the island's official language, most Arubans speak Papiamento, a mix of Spanish and Portuguese. More than 80 percent of the island's 97,000 people are Roman Catholic, and the largest number of immigrants come from Venezuela and Colombia.

Few people are openly gay on the island. Locals say many homosexuals move to the Netherlands rather than face persecution at home.

"Being gay is still taboo in Aruba," said Guisette Croes, 41, a lesbian who owns a music store in the capital, Oranjestad, and is not related to the government's lawyer. "You have Dutch law here, but you also have conservative Latin American people."

Charlene Oduber-Lamers said she knew winning recognition of her marriage would not be easy.
Not having their marriage recognized meant Esther, a 38-year-old Dutch citizen, could not get health benefits from Charlene's job or stay on the island for more than six months a year under Aruban immigration laws.

It also meant she would not get custody of the couple's 2-year-old daughter should something happen to Charlene, who gave birth to the child with an implanted egg from Esther.

After the couple filed their lawsuit, people began to heckle them and make critical remarks on the street, in the supermarket and at Charlene's job at the Aruban Department of Social Affairs. Someone threw rocks at them, and their tires were slashed outside a hotel.

The couple received public support from Dutch gay rights groups and a liberal political party in the Netherlands, D-66, but local organizations kept a much lower profile. The main Aruban gay rights group declined to comment, saying it did not want to draw attention.

Charlene said stress over the case caused her to have anxiety attacks.

"I never imagined the situation would go this far," she said. "It's been very painful."

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:02 PM

by Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau
Posted: August 21, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Miami, Florida) An umbrella organization of conservative Christian political groups is expected to submit 61,000 signatures to the Florida Supreme Court this week - the first step in getting a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions on the 2006 ballot.

Under Florida law the signatures are required before the wording on the initiative can be approved. If the signatures are proven valid and the court agrees to the wording, the organization - Florida4Marriage - can begin collecting the 611,000 eligible signatures to put the question to voters.

Florida4Marriage is working with the Christian Coalition of Florida and Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian law firm that is involved in fighting gay marriage and domestic partner benefits in a number of states.

On the weekend, Florida4Marriage said it needed only a few hundred more signatures to submit the issue to the court.

The proposal would amend the state Constitution in 2006 to define marriage as a union between "only one man and one woman" and that no other kind of marriage or legal union is equivalent to marriage.

State law already prevents same-sex couples from marrying but makes no mention of civil unions or partner benefits.

The proposed amendment does not have the backing of Gov. Jeb Bush. Bush has said he considers the amendment unnecessary.

LGBT civil rights group Equality Florida calls the amendment a divisive attempt to keep same-sex couples second class citizens.

A poll taken for the organization shows that the state is split on amending the constitution with 54 percent in favor of barring gay marriage and 55 percent in favor of some sort of legal protection for gay couples.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:00 PM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 21, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) Less than two months after the California Supreme Court allowed the state's sweeping domestic partner law to stand a new legal challenge has been filed.
While conservative Christian groups opposed to gay marriage had battled the law in general, the new challenge targets only one section of the law.

The lawsuit was filed by a Northern California tax assessor who maintains that the provision in the partnership law that allows the estates of gays who die without a will to go to their registered domestic partners is illegal.

Sutter County Assessor Mike Strong's suit asserts that the Domestic Partner law's estate provision violates the state's Probate Code and the Family Code.

Strong attempted to challenge the law earlier this year but the case was thrown out of court. Late last week he refiled the suit in Sacramento County Court.

Three other assessors are seeking to present arguments supporting Hersher. The court also has granted legal standing to Equality California, the state's largest LGBT rights organization.
"I don't understand what motivates people like these assessors," Steve Hansen, legislative director of Equality California, told the Appeal-Democrat newspaper.

Under the partnership law if one partner dies without a will his or her property is not reassessed and is transferred automatically to the surviving partner.

That is important Hansen said, because a new assessment would be considerably higher and could mean surviving partners could not afford the taxes.

"You suddenly find yourself on a fixed income but having lost your means for paying bills through your partner. That joint income is gone. You can't afford the house you lived in for 20 years. You have to move. It's indignity upon indignity. I think it's a big issue," Hansen told the paper.

"If there's a problem in the law, it can be corrected. Going to court this way and denying people a compassionate tax system that keeps them from losing their homes is not the California way."

Meanwhile, the issue of same-sex marriage continues to be fought in the courts and at the legislature.

In March ruling a San Francisco a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The case is currently under appeal and is expected to reach the state Supreme Court next year.

At the legislature, the Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill that would legalize gay marriage.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:57 PM

posted by Anthony # 9:50 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 18, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Jacksonville, Florida) Six northeast Florida Episcopal congregations have asked the archbishop of Canterbury to help secure them a different bishop because their current one has not distanced himself from the national organization, which elected an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Community, informed him they were "in serious theological dispute" with Bishop John Howard and said it was impossible to remain under his leadership within the Jacksonville-based Diocese of Florida.

The Rev. Sam Pascoe, rector at Grace Church in Orange Park, said the churches' believe that getting another bishop would allow them to conduct their ministries "with a clean conscience." The churches opposed the consecration by the national church of V. Gene Robinson, a gay bishop in New Hampshire who lives with a partner.

The other churches are All Souls, the Church of the Redeemer and Calvary Church, all in Jacksonville: St. Michael's in Gainesville and St. Luke's Community Church of Life in Tallahassee.

Together, they represent about 4,000 parishioners in a diocese that includes 77 congregations and about 35,000 members in 25 counties in northeast Florida. Several conservative Episcopal congregations in other states have also protested Robinson's consecration, saying it violates the Bible.

Howard rejected last week a request from the congregations' that he temporarily assign another bishop saying it amounted to a "divorce" between the churches and the diocese.

On Wednesday, church officials regretted that the congregations had appealed their case to the archbishop of Canterbury."It's disappointing that political tactics are being used - real disappointing," said the Rev. Canon Kurt Dunkle, the bishop's chief of staff.

Howard said he was open to discussing a less comprehensive form of alternative oversight for the six churches.

On Tuesday, the congregations responded with a letter to Howard explaining they are open to considering other forms of oversight, but they also informed him they had appealed his decision to the archbishop of Canterbury.

Dunkle predicted the congregations' appeal to Canterbury will be referred back to the local and national level.

He added that even if the archbishop made a ruling on the appeal, it would amount to a suggestion because he cannot dictate policies to Howard or other bishops.Earlier this week a California judge has ruled that the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles can't confiscate the property of a parish that disassociated itself from the denomination over Robinson's ordination.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:48 AM

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

(Augusta, Maine) A referendum to nullify Maine's LGBT civil rights law is destined to fail a statewide poll released Thursday indicates.

The survey, by Strategic Marketing Services, shows that three in five Mainers would vote to uphold the law.

The law, enacted in March, protects gays, lesbians and the transgendered from discrimination in housing, employment and credit.

A conservative Christian group opposed to the law then gathered enough signatures to put a repeal measure on the November ballot.

The law was the third time a gay civil rights bill had been passed in Maine over the past decade. The Christian Civic League forced the issue on the ballot on the past two occasions and the laws were overturned. The most recent was in 2000.

All five other New England states already have legislation protecting LGBT civil rights.

In battling the current law the League has attempted to claim basic civil rights protections are the first step toward legalizing gay marriage.

The poll released today shows that argument is not being accepted by voters.

It found that 61 percent of those surveyed said they would vote to keep the state law or were leaning in that direction, while 28 percent said they would vote to reject the law or were leaning that way. Eleven percent were undecided.

The quarterly poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, was based on telephone interviews with 400 randomly selected adults between July 23 and July 30.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:46 AM

by Mary Ellen Peterson 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 18, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow hundreds of California state workers who retired prior to January 1, 2005 to take advantage of the state's Domestic Partnership law is heading to a full vote in the Assembly.

Under the Partnership law same-sex couples have many of the same rights as California offers married couples, but it does not cover civil servants who retired prior to the law coming into effect.

The bill proposed by LGBT Caucus Chair Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) would allow those older pensioners and their partners or survivors to be included.

It would affect pensions, health insurance and state 401K plans.

The measure passed its last hurdle o Wednesday when it was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in a 12-5 vote.

“Retired public employees who are legally recognized domestic partners should have the same financial opportunities to protect and secure their families,” said Executive Director Geoffrey Kors of Equality California.

“When one partner dies, it is a tragedy for the survivors. Current law unintentionally compounds that suffering by denying what married couples have easy access to - the death benefit. They should have peace of mind that the government will stand tall to protect rights, not take them away.”

The bill is expected to come to a vote in the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in the state is sitting in limbo waiting for a vote by the full senate. There are only three weeks left in the current session of the legislature.
The issue of gay marriage is also being fought in California courts and the case is expected to go to the state Supreme Court within the next two years, unless a move by conservatives to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is successful.

Three propositions are being prepared for the next election to ban gay marriage. If any of them passes it would nullify the Domestic Partner law as well.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:44 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 19, 2005 12:01 am ET

(San Francisco, California) In a ruling that has both sides claiming victory, a judge late Thursday ordered changes to the summary of a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California.

The proposed amendment would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions and nullify the state's landmark domestic partner benefits law.

But VoteYesMarriage, the organization behind the initiative, went to court over the title and and wording Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office used in the official summary of the measure that will be used to qualify it for the ballot.

The Attorney General gave it the title: "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights." VoteYesMarriage called for the question to be titled: "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative."

Lockyer's summary of the amendment also specified that the initiative would ban not only gay marriage but also partner benefits.

Thursday, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Ronald Cadei ruled that the description could be misinterpreted by some voters.

VoteYesMarriage was represented by the conservative Christian law firm Liberty Counsel which is involved in battling same-sex marriage in a number of states.

"It was designed to discourage individuals from voting in favor of the marriage initiative," Liberty Counsel's Mathew Staver said of Lockyer's wording.

But Lockyer spokesperson Nathan Barankin said the ruling does not toss out the whole summary and only asks for some portions of it to be clarified.

"He didn't say delete anything. He said, 'Add language to make it more precise,'" Barankin said, adding that the judge rejected a call from Liberty Counsel to delete the portion that notes the measure would void domestic partnerships in the state.

“Today’s ruling was in favor of truth and honesty in our election system and a blow to the proponents’ attempts to hide the ball from California’s voters,” said Lambda Legal attorney Jennifer C. Pizer who represented a group of organizations and individuals that were granted the right to intervene in the dispute.

“Their intention is to not only permanently ban marriage equality but this amendment would also strip rights from registered domestic partners. Voters are entitled to know that,” said Pizer.
Judge Cadei gave VoteYesMarriage, the attorney general and representatives from gay rights organizations two weeks to sit down and rewrite a version of the petition language that all parties find acceptable.

Once that is done, VoteYesMarriage has 150 days to gather the 598,105 signatures it needs to put the amendment before voters in June 2006.

The ballot initiative is one of three gay marriage foes are trying to get on the ballot. The organizers of the other two have not questioned the titles or wordings of those measures.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:42 AM

posted by Anthony # 7:39 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 17, 2005 9:00 pm ET
(Englewood, New Jersey)

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America has announced it will no longer be part of the National Council of Churches, saying the organization has become too political in supporting denominations that favor gays.

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese has about 390,000 members and 240 parishes and races its roots to Arabic-speaking immigrants to North America.

Based in Englewood, New Jersey, the Church has become dissatisfied with the Council's support for the United Church of Christ decision to support same-sex marriage and its acceptance of the Episcopal Church's consecration of Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop.

"It got to be too much," said Antiochian spokesperson Thomas Zain. "There was no more reason to be part of [the NCC]."

He said that the Council has "lost its goal of Christian unity on a doctrinal basis. The goal seems to be including everybody and [promoting] niceties."

Zain said that the denomination considered taking up its dissatisfaction with the NCC with a larger body of U.S. Orthodox denominations, but decided to act alone.

Some Orthodox churches have signed on to a new ecumenical body, Christian Churches Together but Zain said that the Antiochian archdiocese has yet to join that body.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:50 PM

posted by Anthony # 11:49 PM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: August 16, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(London) The British government unveiled plans on Tuesday to overhaul its laws on in vitro fertilization, making it easier to lesbians to use sperm banks.

Currently the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act requires women undergoing treatment to show the child would have a male role model. The provision frequently leads clinics to refuse treatment to lesbians.

The head of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, has criticized the current rule, calling it "nonsense". A House of Commons committee that made recommendations for the revised Act called the restriction "offensive" to unconventional families.

As a result of the restriction on lesbian in vitro many women turned to finding sperm donors over the internet or through friends raising concerns about safety and the potential for passing on HIV. Licensed sperm banks are required to perform HIV tests.

Under the guidelines announced today the section of the act used to deny lesbians fertility treatment will be removed.

The revisions will go through a public input process before going to Parliament.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:08 AM

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

(Augusta, Maine) Maine is in the midst of its third referendum campaign in eight years to decide if gays should be given broad civil rights protections. And while the measure has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, conservatives are warning Maine could go the way of Massachusetts if gays are given more rights."Absolutely," said Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, embracing the gay marriage connection.

"This vote in November either sends us toward it or points us away from it."The dispute began after Gov. John Baldacci signed a new law in March that would extend the Maine Human Rights Act to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.A conservative church-led alliance led a petition drive to demand a "people's veto" to reject it, and a vote is scheduled for November.

Gay rights advocates denounce the gay-marriage tactic as a smoke screen. Maine law already bans gay marriage, and language approved by the Legislature says the anti-discrimination measure "may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry."

"Look," says Jesse Connolly of the organization known as Maine Won't Discriminate, "the Christian Civic League knows they can't win an election based on the facts in this bill."Fifteen states - including the rest of New England - prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to Carrie Evans, state legislative director of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign.

But the matter still is open in Maine, where state law now prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, ancestry and national origin.Maine is "the battleground state for this issue on the national scene," Connolly says.Maine has long been fertile ground for social activists - from Prohibition adherents to back-to-the-land enthusiasts. These days, it has also become referendum-friendly, with hot-button issues from casino gambling to physician-assisted suicide going directly to voters.

Maine's Human Rights Act was passed in 1971 and the political struggle over whether it should cover gays is decades-old.A 1997 law extending gay rights was narrowly repealed by a people's veto the following year. In 2000, voters were asked if they would ratify the Legislature's approval of another gay rights bill: The vote was 314,012 in favor and 318,846 against.

This time, the debate has taken on a new overtone, with opponents linking the question of discrimination to the issue of same-sex marriage. At a rally in June, Heath and others assembled under a banner that said, "The Coalition for Marriage."Heath says granting more civil rights could open the door to to more sweeping interpretations when it comes to marriage.

"That's the argument that's been used by judges in support of marriage rights," he said.

Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage. Two states, Vermont and most recently Connecticut, have legalized civil unions.

Although Maine has a statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was rejected by lawmakers who said it was unnecessary.

Last year, the state created a domestic-partner registry that covers both same-sex and heterosexual couples and allows them to inherit property and be designated as a guardian or next of kin.

Whether the specter of gay marriage can bring down the gay rights law remains an open question. In a statewide poll in January, 37.5 percent supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples; another 31 percent backed civil unions but not gay marriage, according to the Strategic Marketing Services omnibus poll.

For partisans, a legislative hearing in March demonstrated there is no common ground.Charla Bansley, state director of Concerned Women for America of Maine, said in written testimony that "what the homosexual activists are seeking is official social approval of the homosexual lifestyle."

But Donna Minnis wrote that "the 'Gay Agenda' has indeed been revealed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to the U.S. Constitution."
©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:06 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 16, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Lansing, Michigan) Twenty-two same-sex couples and Michigan Gov. Gov. Jennifer Granholm squared off in a courtroom Tuesday against the state's Attorney General in a battle over whether the constitutional ban on gay marriage extends to partner benefits.

The lawsuit was first filed in March by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan on behalf of the couples, who receive health insurance from their public employers or who would have received DP benefits as part of new state labor contracts.

State and local governmental agencies, represented by the Michigan Corrections Organization, Michigan State Employees Association, Service Employees International Union, AFSCME and UAW, had successfully bargained for a jobs benefits package. The package included medical benefits and family medical leave for their families, including domestic partners and their children.

But, despite the agreement with the unions, in December, 2004, Governor Jennifer Granholm announced that domestic partner benefits would be removed from the contracts following a legal opinion from Attorney General Mike Cox that the constitutional amendment passed by voters last year bars all public employers from providing domestic partner benefits.

But, although Granholm removed the benefits from the contracts she disagrees with Cox's interpretation of the amendment. Last month she entered the case on the side of the gay couples.

Cox is obligated to argue the case against benefits as Attorney General.

Graholm has her own lawyer. The same-sex couples are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Late Tuesday afternoon the case opened with ACLU lawyer Deborah Labelle telling Circuit Court Judge Joyce Draganchuk that granting health insurance is simply a benefit of employment and in no way recognizes a marriage-like relationship. Labelle also said backers of the ballot proposal consistently said it was only about marriage — not benefits.

"This goes way beyond the stated purpose of the amendment ... and far beyond the drafters' and voters' intent," she said.

But, Eric Restuccia, the attorney representing Cox said the amendment's wording is plain on its face.

Outside the court dozens of gays and lesbians demonstrated in support of the plaintiffs. The rally was organized by Michigan Equality.

The case is expected to continue throughout most of the week but a decision could take weeks or months.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:04 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 16, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) A New Hampshire commission that has been gauging public support for same-sex marriage is turning its attention to lawyers, economists and psychologists with only a few months left before it delivers its recommendations to the state legislature.

The commission was created last May as part of a law passed to forbid the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.

New Hampshire law already bans same-sex marriage but there were concerns that couples from the state would travel to Massachusetts or Canada, wed, and return home seeking to have those marriages recognized.

In creating the commission the legislature said it wanted to have a complete look at same-sex relationships including the possibility of repealing the bans on gay marriage or of permitting civil unions similar to those in Vermont.

The commission was asked to examine all state laws that would need to be rewritten -- including child custody and inheritance statutes

The commission failed to hold any meetings for nearly a year, then began moving across the state hearing from citizens. This week the commission voted to invite a long list of professionals to get their input. The list includes legal, psychological and economic experts.

The hearings will be begin in mid September.

The commission must then prepare its final report with recommendations and hand it in to the legislature by December 1.

During the private citizen hearings the commission heard from people both in favor and opposed to recognizing same-sex couples. But, even in conservative Littleton the majority were in favor of legal protections for gay families.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:03 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: August 16, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Cologne, German) German LGBT rights groups have asked for a meeting with Pope Benedict when he travels to Cologne this week for Catholic World Youth Day.

The groups say they want to open a dialogue with the pontiff, who is German by birth.

Benedict will arrive in Cologne on Thursday to join more than 400 000 young Catholics from 197 countries who are taking part in World Youth Day.

"Our goal is to ensure that people whose sexual orientation has been given by God are morally supported by the Catholic church", the groups said in a statement on Tuesday.

The organizations include Germany's Lesbian and Gay Association, the Cologne Lesbian and Gay Day, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the European forum of Lesbian and Gay Christian Groups and the Ecumenical Homosexual and Church Working Group.

The general secretary for World Youth Day, Heiner Koch, also called for the church to improve its relationship with gays and lesbians.

"We need dialogue," Koch said in interview with the Cologne daily Express on Tuesday. "I wish for a relaxation in the relationship," he said.

The Vatican has not commented on the request for a meeting.

Since his election to the papacy in April, Benedict has reaffirmed the Church's anti-gay stand. In June, he issued a stinging condemnation of gay and lesbian families.

Repeatedly driving home his point that marriage can only be a union between man and woman, the Pope called same-sex unions "pseudo-matrimony".

Before becoming Pope, Benedict had long history of attacking same-sex unions. As Cardinal Ratzinger he was the Vatican's most outspoken opponent of gay marriage.

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

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

He opposes contraception and the use of condoms to combat HIV/AIDS, advocates a diminished role for women in the Church and has called for mandatory celibacy for priests.

In 1999 he ordered two Americans, Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent, to end their associated with New Ways Ministry which provides educational programs for gay and lesbian Catholics nationwide.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:01 AM

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

(Augusta, Maine) Maine is in the midst of its third referendum campaign in eight years to decide if gays should be given broad civil rights protections. And while the measure has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, conservatives are warning Maine could go the way of Massachusetts if gays are given more rights.

"Absolutely," said Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, embracing the gay marriage connection. "This vote in November either sends us toward it or points us away from it."

The dispute began after Gov. John Baldacci signed a new law in March that would extend the Maine Human Rights Act to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.A conservative church-led alliance led a petition drive to demand a "people's veto" to reject it, and a vote is scheduled for November.

Gay rights advocates denounce the gay-marriage tactic as a smoke screen. Maine law already bans gay marriage, and language approved by the Legislature says the anti-discrimination measure "may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry."

"Look," says Jesse Connolly of the organization known as Maine Won't Discriminate, "the Christian Civic League knows they can't win an election based on the facts in this bill."Fifteen states - including the rest of New England - prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to Carrie Evans, state legislative director of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign.But the matter still is open in Maine, where state law now prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, ancestry and national origin.Maine is "the battleground state for this issue on the national scene," Connolly says.

Maine has long been fertile ground for social activists - from Prohibition adherents to back-to-the-land enthusiasts. These days, it has also become referendum-friendly, with hot-button issues from casino gambling to physician-assisted suicide going directly to voters.

Maine's Human Rights Act was passed in 1971 and the political struggle over whether it should cover gays is decades-old.A 1997 law extending gay rights was narrowly repealed by a people's veto the following year.

In 2000, voters were asked if they would ratify the Legislature's approval of another gay rights bill: The vote was 314,012 in favor and 318,846 against.This time, the debate has taken on a new overtone, with opponents linking the question of discrimination to the issue of same-sex marriage.

At a rally in June, Heath and others assembled under a banner that said, "The Coalition for Marriage."Heath says granting more civil rights could open the door to to more sweeping interpretations when it comes to marriage.

"That's the argument that's been used by judges in support of marriage rights," he said.

Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage. Two states, Vermont and most recently Connecticut, have legalized civil unions.

Although Maine has a statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was rejected by lawmakers who said it was unnecessary.Last year, the state created a domestic-partner registry that covers both same-sex and heterosexual couples and allows them to inherit property and be designated as a guardian or next of kin.

Whether the specter of gay marriage can bring down the gay rights law remains an open question.

In a statewide poll in January, 37.5 percent supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples; another 31 percent backed civil unions but not gay marriage, according to the Strategic Marketing Services omnibus poll.For partisans, a legislative hearing in March demonstrated there is no common ground.Charla Bansley, state director of Concerned Women for America of Maine, said in written testimony that "what the homosexual activists are seeking is official social approval of the homosexual lifestyle.

"But Donna Minnis wrote that "the 'Gay Agenda' has indeed been revealed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to the U.S. Constitution."
©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 6:40 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 16, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Santa Ana, California) A judge has ruled that the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles can't confiscate the property of a parish that disassociated itself from the denomination over a gay bishop's ordination.

Orange County Superior Court Judge David C. Velasquez dismissed a lawsuit brought by the diocese against the dissident St. James Church in Newport Beach, saying that the parish's actions were protected by freedom of speech.

The ruling means that St. James will retain legal possession of its church buildings, property and financial records.

Two other Episcopalian parishes - All Saints' Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood - are challenging lawsuits the diocese filed against them in Los Angeles County. Those cases will be heard next month.

"It is a great relief to the loyal members of our church to ... know that the sanctuary and grounds where we gather every Sunday will remain a safe harbor for us," the Rev. Praveen Bunyan said Monday in a prepared statement.

Lawrence Ebiner, attorney for the diocese, said after court Monday that the diocese hasn't decided whether to appeal.

Members of the three parishes voted last summer to disassociate from the Episcopalian Church USA after the ordination of a gay bishop in the Diocese of New Hampshire. They announced they were placing themselves under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in Uganda.
The diocese then sued to retain the church's parish property and building.

The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:46 PM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 15, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) The clock is ticking with only four weeks left to pass a bill that would allow same-sex couples in California to marry.

California legislators returned to Sacramento Monday from a month-long recess to wrap up their 2005 session.

The marriage bill is only one of more than 800 vying for the attention of lawmakers. It was to have come up for debate Monday at the Senate Appropriations Committee but was put off until next week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure last month.

The marriage bill was considered all but dead this spring when it was defeated by four votes in the Assembly after a quarter of the Democrats in the House voted with Republicans to reject it.

The bill's author Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was undeterred. Leno succeeded in having the legislation attached to a marine bill working its way through the Senate. It it makes it to the Senate floor and passes, the measure would then return to the Assembly.

Leno is one of six openly gay members of the Legislature.

Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, 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.

If the gay marriage legislation makes it through both houses it would go to the governor's desk before lawmakers wrap up their 2005 session in September.

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

The issue of same-sex marriage also is being waged in the courts.

Last week the California Supreme Court declined to fast track the case. The Attorney General has appealed a March ruling in San Francisco where a judge said that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Both Attorney General Bill Lockyer and The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal had petitioned the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals courts and hear the case now. The justices declined, meaning the high court is not likely to get the case for a year.

By that time voters are likely to have weighed in on same-sex marriage. 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.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:45 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 15, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Montpellier, Vermont) The Vermont Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall in a nasty custody battle, involving a lesbian former couple and their daughter, that could wind up in the US Supreme Court.

The case is being fought in two states, and no matter how the the Vermont high court rules it is expected one side or the other will appeal to the US Supreme Court. If that happens, and the court agrees to hear the case, it could be the first gay issue to come before it with a Bush appointee on the bench.

The suit revolves around a three year old girl born through artificial insemination to Lisa Miller-Jenkins. At the time she was in a relationship with Janet Miller-Jenkins which had been formalized by a civil union in Vermont where they resided.

When the relationship between the two women soured and they split up, a judge in Vermont gave Janet Miller-Jenkins temporary visitation rights with the child.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins fled with her daughter to Virginia which has some of the most anti-gay legislation in the country. She then went to court in that state seeking sole custody of the child.
Janet Miller-Jenkins fought the application on the grounds that the case was already before the court in Vermont. But, Judge John R. Prosser ruled that since the mother resided in Virginia, a Virginia court would hear the case. Subsequently Prosser ruled that Lisa Miller-Jenkins was the sole parent and that Janet Miller-Jenkins is nothing more a friend to the child.

A Family Court judge in Rutland, Vermont then found Lisa Miller-Jenkins in contempt for moving to Virginia and disobeying a court order involving the child's custody.

Last November a Vermont judge ruled that under the state's civil unions law, Janet Miller-Jenkins must be regarded as a co-parent.

It was the first time that a Vermont judge has ruled for co-parenting using the civil unions law, but the ruling pits the state against Virginia.

As a result of the Virginia rulings, Lisa Miller-Jenkins asked the Vermont Supreme Court to reverse the Vermont Family Court’s rulings so that it would concur with the Virginia decision.
Today the Vermont high court said it will hear arguments in the case on September 7.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 5:32 PM

By Brian O'Leary BennettBRIAN O'LEARY BENNETT is a member of the state board of directors of Equality California, a gay rights organization, and a member of the State Executive Committee of the California Republican Party, 1

Los Angeles Times
August 14, 2005

TWO YEARS AGO, my then-domestic partner of seven years had a life-threatening stroke. Rick was only 39. I walked through the door of our home and found him stumbling, drooling, arms slowly flailing about, trying but unable to speak, banging against the walls. It is still a vivid, painful memory.

The paramedics had Rick at the hospital in minutes. Once there, it was just me and Rick's incredibly competent doctors and nurses at Long Beach Memorial Hospital, no other family members.

Rick lay paralyzed, incoherent and speechless in the emergency ward. There was a relatively new, powerful and potentially dangerous drug for clearing the stroke-inducing blockage, but it had to be administered within three hours after the onset.

The doctors could only estimate when Rick's stroke began. This uncertainty made quick decision-making that much more urgent.Give Rick the medicine or not?

At first, it was believed that traces of blood had seeped into his brain cavity, making the treatment potentially lethal. The doctors went through CAT scans and other tests to determine with virtual certainty that no blood was present, so Rick could be given the drug. It was a harrowing event. I was the one the doctors approached, counseled and queried. In the end, the right advice was given and timely decisions were reached.

I was the one who gave permission, signed the liability forms, made the decisions. As it should be. I was one of two people, other than Rick, who remembered that he had suffered something akin to a mild stroke 10 years earlier. With this information the doctors were able to speed up their diagnosis and treatment.

These are the histories loved ones memorize as they build their lives together. How dangerously cruel that because we are gay, some people want you to believe our responsibility for each other, our lives and our histories, shouldn't count.

I thank God that Rick has had a near complete recovery. This is why it is infuriating — and medieval — that signature-gatherers are outside stores and restaurants, asking people to sign petitions to place an initiative on the June 2006 ballot that would take away the right of all gays and lesbians to make medical decisions for our domestic partners. The initiative would also invalidate domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. All of them. The initiative would even ban hospital visitation rights for domestic partners, though its proponents deny it.

THE SPONSORS call it the "Voters Right to Protect Marriage Initiative." But the state attorney general's office has correctly renamed it "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights" because that's what it would do.

What would these people have had me do on that Father's Day weekend two years ago? When literally every minute counted, they would have had me try to track down Rick's mother in Cincinnati on that holiday so that she could make medical decisions from afar, over the phone.

If this initiative qualifies and passes, this is how it will go down for tens of thousands of couples who failed, forgot or couldn't afford the considerable expense to draft medical decision-making documents. (At the time of Rick's stroke, there was not yet a law giving domestic partners an automatic right to make medical decisions for one another. We spent thousands of dollars to have legal documents drawn up spelling out our wishes about that and other decisions.)

It's nonsensical and heartless. The real-world consequences might well be tragic, not to mention wrenchingly unfair. A large majority of California voters — cited in polls — and state legislators and now the courts all seem to agree: Gays and lesbians have the right and obligation to take care of their partners. Just this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that a San Diego country club must provide the same rights to a member's domestic partner as it provides to a member's spouse.

And still the initiative's proponents insist that we keep fighting yesterday's battles over medical decision-making. The proposed initiative declares that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in our state — an issue clearly worthy of its own up-or-down vote.

But its sponsors don't want you to have one. They have had success around the country hiding repeal of domestic partnership rights within a "protect marriage" campaign.

Many people who voted no on marriage most likely did not intend to say no to medical, visitation and other partnership rights too. So when a signature-gatherer outside a restaurant or at the mall asks you to sign a petition for this initiative, read the fine print. Know all of what the initiative is going to do before you sign it. Know it would take away my right to care for my loved one during a medical emergency and much more.

I cannot begin to imagine what could have happened if the doctors in the emergency room had refused me the right to make medical decisions for Rick that day.

In those critical moments, no one should be put at risk because the person who loves him and knows him the best has been banished to a waiting room.

Please help stop this effort to eliminate rights for domestic partners.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 4:41 PM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: August 15, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Washington) The second in a series of satellite broadcasts to conservative churches across the country on Sunday was long on attacks on gays and "activist judges" but conspicuously short on mentions of President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court.

The event, organized by the Family Research Council of Washington, D.C., featured House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Georgia Senator Zell Miller and Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson.

Speakers urged Christians to pray to God for deliverance from liberal judges. They denounced Supreme Court rulings on gay rights, religious expression, and abortion.

"Disguising prejudice as justice is un-American," said Human Rights Ccampaign President Joe Solmonese. "The extremism on display last night dangerously ignored the Court's more than 200-year-old responsibility of independence. In rallying against this liberty, the speakers last night rallied against one of our democracy's greatest qualities."

Although the broadcast originally had been set up to promote Judge John Roberts' confirmation to the high court, none of last night's speakers explicitly called for Roberts to be placed on the high court.

The closest reference came from Miller who urged people of faith to "cover this confirmation process with a blanket of prayer." Dobson said he prays that Senate Democrats won't be able to turn the hearings "into a circus."

The broadcast had been set up to push Roberts' confirmation. But, that was before many conservative groups became "alarmed" over revelations that Roberts had offered free legal advice to an LGBT group that ultimately won a landmark 1996 gay civil rights case at the Supreme Court. Following closely was the disclosure Roberts also lent a hand in 1999 preparing Playboy representatives for oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Last week, Public Advocate, a conservative Virginia-based "national pro-family group", withdrew its support of Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

Other conservative groups have not gone so far but several, including the organizers of Sunday's event, have been vocal in raising "concerns" Roberts may be too liberal in his views.

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group fighting LGBT rights in several states, said Roberts' involvement in the gay case is "something to certainly be concerned about." Focus on the Family also is "raising alarm bells."

But, while conservative pull back on their support for Judge Roberts, LGBT civil rights groups are equally concerned.

"All this shows is that Roberts is a good lawyer. It has nothing to do with his ideology," NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman said of the1996 gay rights case last week. "

Michael Adams, director of education at Lambda Legal, said that "It poses as many questions as answers."

Senate confirmation hearings for Roberts are set to begin Sept. 6.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 4:37 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 15, 2005 11:00 am ET

(New York City) Members of Dignity, the organization for gay Catholics, demonstrated Sunday in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral demanding an apology from a priest who blamed gays for the ills of the church before becoming embroiled in his own sex scandal.

Monsignor Eugene Clark resigned as rector of the New York cathedral last week after being named as "the other man" in a nasty divorce involving the woman who was his private secretary.

Clark has denied the affair with Laura DeFilippo but a video shows him entering a suburban motel room with the woman.

Clark was noted for his fiery speeches on chastity, family life and for repeated attacks on gays in sermons and on diocese sponsored radio and television.

In 1999 Clark told a Catholic radio audience that gays are "the enemy of Christian marriage and Christian falling in love and all the tenderness that goes with that."

In 2002 Clark Clark blamed gays for the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. In a homily delivered from the pulpit at the cathedral Clark called homosexuality a "disorder," and said gay men should not be allowed to become priests.

It resulted in protests by gays and abuse victims who said the church was trying to make gays scapegoats for the scandal.

Clark later recanted his comments, but within months he launched a new salvo, accusing gays of destroying Catholic family life.

In a radio broadcast he said Hollywood was controlled by gays and their supporters advancing a "homosexual agenda".

"A whole generation of Americans has been solicited...by American popular culture which is Hollywood and the media, Hollywood taking the most advanced step in this."

On Sunday, a small group of Dignity members carrying signs stood on Fifth Avenue in front of the Cathedral demanding Clark apologize and yelling "Hypocrisy! Apologize!"

"He linked the sex abuse scandal - you know, the sex abuse in the Catholic Church - with the gay community. He blamed the gay community for this crisis," said gay activist and Dignity member Brendan Fay.

Clark was not in the Cathedral on Sunday. Edward Cardinal Egan also was absent.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:57 AM

posted by Anthony # 11:56 AM

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: August 14, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Sydney, Australia) More than a thousand gays and lesbians demonstrated in cities across Australia on the weekend for the right to marry.

The event was called a "National Day Of Action" and coincided with the first anniversary of the Marriage Amendment Act which banned the recognition of overseas same-sex marriages and defined marriage in Australia as between one woman and one man.

“Our families contribute to the nation like every other family yet they are still being denied the right to marry or the ability form federal de facto relationships” said Australia Marriage Equality national convenor Luke Gahan.

In Sydney about 600 same-sex couples wearing pink hearts marched through the city's gay neighborhood to Hyde Park for a rally.

"Last year's marriage ban was a statement based on discrimination and prejudice against lesbians and gay men, it was statement which said that our love is not equal," said Julie McConnell, one of the organizers of the Sydney event.

"Pink hearts show that our relationships with each other and our children are equal and deserve full legal equality," she said.

In Melbourne, about 400 people celebrated as same-sex couples took "midwinter vows" in a mock mass wedding.

"There is no reason that same-sex couples in Australia continue to be denied any legal recognition under federal law," said Gahan.

Same-sex marriage is legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and the state of Massachusetts.

Even though it will not be legal in Australia Gahan will marry his fiancé Matthew Culleton on in September in Vancouver, Canada.

Gahan said he and Culleton will live in Canada legally married for one year adding that when they return home they hope the law is changed.

A recent survey of the Victorian Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender community reported that 98% participants wanted some form of legal recognition to be available for same sex couples, with 80% nominating marriage as the preferred status.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:25 AM

posted by Anthony # 12:24 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 13, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) Politicians who support gay rights and abortion have been banned from speaking at Roman Catholic churches in the Phoenix Diocese by Bishop Thomas Olmsted, former bishop of Wichita.

So far, Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano is the only person affected. She was forbidden to speak at a Scottsdale church, so an event was moved to another site.

Olmsted, who was Wichita's coadjutor bishop in 1999 and then sole bishop from 2001 to December 2003, wrote pastors in December saying churches may not invite to speak any public figure who disagrees with basic church teachings on abortion, gay marriage or other issues, the Arizona Republic reported.

Napolitano, a Methodist, said the ban was broad, not aimed at just her. "I think the church is for praying and that politics are not for inside the church," she said.

Olmsted is among bishops taking a strict interpretation of a June 2004 statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops titled "Catholics in Political Life." It condemns people who don't follow Catholic teaching but leaves decisions about speeches and receipt of communion to individual bishops.

Other bishops have taken a softer approach. Napolitano was allowed to speak at a church in the Tucson Diocese to mark the 15th anniversary of the Pima County Interfaith Council.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:35 AM

Injustice Sunday

Church Street Freedom Press

VIEWPOINT / OPINIONby Harry Knox

The God of the Bible is often tough to recognize in the picture of the Creator painted by religious leaders on the far right. When I read the scriptures, God is clearly on the side of the poor, the marginalized, outcasts and strangers. But to hear the far right tell it, God is on the side of the majority and last year’s election was a mandate from the Almighty for their views.

They should know better. But they’re at it again as they prepare for Justice Sunday II on Aug. 14, a national event in Nashville that uses the pulpit for pushing injustice.

As a Christian, I believe our faith is most evident in action we take to protect the elderly, to heal the sick and house the poor, to promote peace, and to protect and extend liberties and freedoms, including the freedom of religion.

It would never occur to me to propose that one particular religion be law of the land. That would silence my sisters and brothers of other faiths from whom I have learned so much that has stretched my own understanding. It’s through these faiths that I’ve been able to see even more revealed of the awesome, limitless nature of the Creator.

This In-Justice Sunday, Majority Leader Tom Delay, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and others will say that God wants America to look, act, and talk just like they do – to be a country that reflects only their narrow view of morality.

How Christian is it to say poor people deserve their state, gay people should be fired from their jobs, wars should be prosecuted based on might over right and women should have no say over what happens to their own bodies? It is not very Christian at all.

When the founders wrote the Constitution, they struck a delicate balance. On the one hand, they made sure everyone would be able to practice their religion according to their own understanding. On the other, they made clear that everyone – believers of all stripes and non-believers – should have a say in decisions made by government.

It’s that last part the organizers of Justice Sunday II have forgotten. They would like nothing better than a judiciary that would limit the rights of lesbian and gay people to marry, even though a growing number of Christian denominations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and several Jewish traditions all seek the legal right to perform such marriages.

It gets worse. The organizers of Sunday’s event want to do more than limit the free expression of religion enjoyed by progressive people of faith. They even want to limit the debate over the proper role of government as Judge John Roberts is considered for the Supreme Court. They call progressives “Catholic-bashers” because Roberts is Catholic and we have the gall to ask him questions.

Nonsense. Not only is asking pertinent questions of nominees perfectly respectful, since Judge Roberts is being asked to sit in judgment over the nation, it is required of people of faith who love America to find out the answers.

Here’s the question I would like to ask: “Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will you give greater weight in your decision-making to your own personal beliefs or to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?” The Justice Sunday II crowd hopes for the former. As a Christian and as an American, I pray for the latter.

So what will you be doing Sunday night while the far right wingers are calling for a theocracy? I plan to be worshiping, praying, singing, and, yes, even preaching at a service of worship sponsored by the volunteers of the Human Rights Campaign’s Nashville Religious Project.

Wherever you might be, if you are a person of faith, do your own preaching and teaching this week. Tell others that no matter what they see or hear of this injustice crowd this Sunday, many more of us believe that faith and fairness are inextricably tied.

If they don’t believe you, remind them of Psalm 103:6, “The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed.” (RSV) Our opponents may claim this Sunday as their own to preach injustice, but everyday is a day for justice.

Harry Knox is Director of the Religion and Faith Program of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation in Washington, DC

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:17 AM

August 13, 2005
New York Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
After a daylong passionate debate, the national assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rejected a proposal yesterday to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to be ordained as members of the clergy.

In an indication of the deep split over homosexuality in the church, which with five million members is the nation's largest Lutheran denomination, the vote on gay clergy members at the church's assembly in Orlando, Fla., divided almost evenly, with 49 percent in favor to 51 percent opposed. To pass, the measure required a two-thirds majority.

The 1,018 delegates in Orlando also voted against an amendment that would have given pastors explicit permission to bless same-sex unions. But the assembly approved a more ambiguous measure that both upholds the current ban on same-sex blessing ceremonies, and says at the same time that the church will "trust" pastors and congregations "to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care" to everyone.

Many advocates of gay inclusion in the church regarded the vote as leaving the door open for same-sex blessings, while opponents of gay blessings maintained that it was a rebuke.
Above all, the Lutherans avoided taking any radical new steps that could precipitate defections. A resolution to remain unified despite deep differences over homosexuality was approved by a vote of 851 to 127.

"We said that we are going to have a communal spirituality, not an issue-driven one," said Bishop Stephen P. Bouman of the metropolitan New York synod. "They allowed us to continue to have pastoral space in local situations for people to offer sensitive and graceful ministry to gay and lesbian people and their relations."

Bishop Bouman said that Lutheran churches "in most regions of the country" already performed same-sex blessings and that the vote in Orlando on that issue "creates a little more public room" for such ceremonies.

But a Lutheran group called Goodsoil that advocates gay equality accused the church of "sacrificing" gay men and women "on the altar of a false and ephemeral sense of unity."
The Lutherans are only one of many mainline Protestant denominations to struggle with seemingly irreconcilable views on homosexuality within their ranks. The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church have upheld bans on ordaining noncelibate gay men and lesbians. The Episcopal Church U.S.A. approved the ordination of an openly noncelibate gay bishop in 2003. In the fallout, some congregations have left, and the Episcopal Church has been condemned by many of its affiliates in the worldwide Anglican communion.

During the Lutherans' debate in Orlando, the Rev. Robert Driesen, a voting member from the Upper Susquehanna synod in Pennsylvania warned that if Lutherans moved in the same direction as the Episcopalians, the repercussions would be felt worldwide. The Lutheran World Federation includes 138 member churches in 77 countries.

"We would separate ourselves not only from these communions but from much of historic Christianity," Mr. Driesen said. "Should we take the same action, we can expect fractures."
The meeting was interrupted when nearly 100 supporters of gay inclusion filed to the front of the assembly and stood in silent protest. The resolutions on homosexuality had been proposed by a church committee that met for three years. The church currently allows the ordination of gay men and women as long as they are celibate and chaste. The defeated resolution would have permitted noncelibate gay men and lesbians to be ordained if they met several criteria, including being in committed relationships.

Many delegates in favor of full inclusion of gay men and women shared personal stories of anger and alienation from the church because of its stance. The Rev. John Hergert, from the Eastern Washington-Idaho synod, talked about two gay friends who turned their back on the church before they died.

"I never want to be there again when a friend says to me, 'To hell with this church and to hell with you for staying in it,' " he said. "Maybe one day I can say to Joe, This is why I stayed," he told the assembly.

Opponents of homosexuality compared homosexuality to alcoholism, saying that both are destructive behaviors, perhaps genetically predisposed, that the church should help people overcome.

"I am wondering if the song 'Anything Goes' is going to be included in the new revised hymnal," said Dale Hamre, a lay delegate from South Dakota. "This is just wrong."

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:14 AM

posted by Anthony # 10:13 AM

by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press
Posted: August 12, 2005 4:14 pm ET

(Orlando, Florida) A national meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted Friday to rebuff what many saw as an attempt to push the denomination toward approval of blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

On a day when the weeklong meeting focused on gays' role in the church, delegates stripped language from a same-sex blessings measure that many Lutherans thought would give local pastors leeway in deciding whether to conduct the ceremonies.

Once the language was removed, the proposal then became an affirmation of current church practice, which bans such blessings and expresses "trust" in pastors ministering to gays and lesbians. It was approved overwhelmingly.

Earlier in the day, delegates voted 851-127 to keep the church unified despite differences over homosexuality.

The issue that was expected to be the most contentious still hadn't been decided _ whether to allow ordination for partnered gays.A proposal before the assembly would affirm the church ban on ordaining sexually active gays and lesbians, but allow bishops and church districts called synods to seek an exception for a particular candidate if that person is in a committed relationship and meets other conditions.Discussion on that measure began late Friday afternoon.All the measures _ the product of three years' work by a special church task force _ were meant as a compromise that will satisfy both those who support gay clergy and those who regard gay sex as sinful.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:36 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 12, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Topeka, Kansas) A move to prevent gays and lesbians from adopting children in Kansas has stalled after the chair of the committee that was to have considered the measure dropped it from the agenda.

Rep. Willa DeCastro (R-Wichita), the chair of the Joint Committee on Children’s Issues said there were more important things to deal with.

“I have a full agenda,” said DeCastro. A prohibition on gay adoption “didn’t make the cut with this chairman.”
Rep. Steve Huebert (R-Valley Center) had called for a review of policies, that by default, currently allow gays and lesbians to adopt children in foster care.

Huebert said he was pursuing the issue on behalf of a constituent worried that her granddaughter might be adopted by a lesbian and raised by a lesbian couple.

State law is silent on whether gays and lesbians can adopt foster children, who generally are in state custody because of allegations of abuse or neglect.

"This is an issue that needs to be examined," Huebert said last month when he proposed the review. "Things need to be spelled out better than they are."

Last year, 627 foster children were adopted, and about half as many children were placed in homes through private adoptions in Kansas. The state doesn't keep statistics on how many gays and lesbians have become adoptive parents.

The state doesn't allow unmarried couples to adopt foster children. However, unmarried individuals can, and the question of sexual preference isn't asked, according to Mike Deines, a spokesman for the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

In April, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions for gay couples. The amendment declares the only legal marriage is Kansas is between one man and one woman.

In their battle leading up to the vote gay rights advocates warned that a ban on gay adoptions, patterned after policies in Texas and Florida, was on the agenda of amendment supporters.
Huebert's measure could still come up at a meeting later this year, but DeCastro said she would not make it a priority.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:34 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 12, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Lexington, Kentucky) A gay Lexington couple that made headlines in 2002 when they became the first same-sex parents of quadruplets are back in the news as details of a nasty custody battle over the four children become public.

Michael Meehan and Thomas Dysarz originally planned to have two children - one fathered by Meehan, the other by Dysarz. In 2001, doctors implanted four eggs fertilized by Meehan into a surrogate mother, hoping one of the eggs would take. Instead, all four did, resulting in the births of three boys and one girl.

Last year the same surrogate was implanted with eggs fertilized by Dysarz, and a fifth child was born.

When the couple split up a battle broke over custody and time sharing of the quads who are now three.

Dysarz went to court seeking joint custody and visitation rights to visit the four toddlers. Meehan is not seeking visitation with the fifth child.

The dispute has been raging for more than a year but was not made public until court records were released this week, when the Kentucky Court of Appeals dismissed the case after Dysarz said he was giving up.

His appeal had centered around a Fayette Circuit Court decision in 2004 that said he did not qualify as a "person acting as a parent" under Kentucky law and had no standing to bring a custody action. The ruling had been sealed until this week.

Fayette Family Court Judge Kim Bunnell had ruled that Dysarz did not assume the role of a parent to the quads, but stood "alongside the biological parent."

In arguing against Dysarz before Judge Bunnell, Meehan said that "there is no prejudice to Thomas by virtue of his sexual identity, as the standard is applied across the board to step-parents, grandparents, day-care providers and others."

But, while that argument may sound amicable as far as sexuality is concerned, the rest of the case was far from it.

Meehan, who is a lawyer, claimed in court documents that the couple actually ended their relationship two months before the quads were born. The documents, show that the continued to share expenses, purchased a home together and were joint owners of a business.

Meehan alleged that Dysarz started dating someone else in the summer of 2003 and brought the man to live with the babies and Meehan.

Dysarz countered in his court filing that he and Meehan had a committed relationship for a longer period than Meehan acknowledged.

Meehan has since moved to Atlanta. Dysarz runs a Lexington beauty salon.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:32 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 12, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(Tahlequah, Oklahoma) A Cherokee Nation tribal court Friday has issued a temporary restraining barring a lesbian couple from filing their marriage certificate with the tribe.
McKinley and Reynolds exchanged vows in Cherokee in May 2004 after the tribe gave Dawn McKinley and Kathy Reynolds a certificate without protest. But, since then legal battles have kept it from being filed.

Earlier this week the latest challenge was filed by a group of conservative Cherokee Nation council members. The move came a week after a tribal court dismissed a similar lawsuit.
Todd Hembree, who serves as counsel to the tribe's legislative body and opposes same-sex marriage, went to court arguing the Cherokee Nation had no right to recognize the marriage.
The court ruled that Hembree had no standing to sue and could not show that he suffered any harm by the couple's attempt to be recognized as a married couple.

Tuesday, a group of elected tribal councilors filed the new court challenge.

"We do have standing in this case because we're the ones who make the laws," said Linda O'Leary, one of the councilors behind the suit.

Today, in issuing the restraining order, the court set a hearing date on making the injunction permanent for August 18th.

In court filings, the councilors point to several references in the Cherokee Nation Code denoting sex and gender in a tribal marriage. They are asking the court to ban same-sex marriages and make Reynolds and McKinley's marriage certificate null and void.

If allowed to file their marriage license, the women will be the only same-sex couple to be registered with the Cherokee Nation.

After McKinley and Reynolds wed last year, the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:30 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 12, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Salt Lake City, Utah) Just days after proposing benefits for the partners of unmarried city workers Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is calling for a domestic partner registry for gay and lesbian couples.

Under the proposal, same-sex partners could sign a registry at city hall giving them all of the city but none of the state or federal benefits of marriage.

If the plan is accepted by city council it would make Salt Lake the only community in Utah to have such a registry.

Anderson tells the Deseret Morning News he is still working out all of the details.

"It might give some extra legal protection if a couple were to move away to a place that did recognize their relationship or it might give some extra legal protection in terms of hospital visits," Anderson said.

But, he has not indicated when the proposal might be ready to present to council.

City Attorney Ed Rutan told the paper that he is preparing a legal opinion on the matter. One of the things he is weighing is Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to determine if a registry would violate the provisions.

Anderson had considered creating the registry last year but the gay community asked the mayor to back off because it was embroiled in the battle over the amendment.
Now, Equality Utah says the timing is right.

"The community would be pleased for any recognition of same sex relationships," he said. "Anything that would acknowledge our relationships and our families," Equality Utah Executive Director Mike Thompson told the Morning News.

Last week Anderson and City Councilwoman Jill Remington Love said they were exploring ways to offer insurance and other benefits to the domestic partners "and and other significant others" of city employees.

But, conservatives on the Mormon dominated council are vowing an all out fight.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:28 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: August 13, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Madrid) A second Spanish judge has asked for a ruling on same-sex marriage from the country's Constitutional Court.

Judge Francisco Garcia, from Gran Canaria, has refused to register three same-sex marriages saying the law which allows gay marriage is likely in violation of the Constitution.

Garcia said the Constitution specifically states that marriage is between a man and a woman. He has asked the high court to declare the gay marriage law invalid.

"Heterosexuality is the fundamental and identifying element of the institution of marriage," Garcia told to the Spanish news agency Efe.

Last month a judge in the southern town of Alicante also asked for a ruling for the Constitutional Court.

Judge Laura Alabau made the announcement in refusing to grant a license to a lesbian couple. Since them, she has blocked at least one other same-sex marriage.

The law granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry passed Parliament in June.

It altered the definition of marriage in the Civil Code to read "Marriage shall have the same requirements and effects whether both parties are of the same or of the opposite sex."

If Spain's Constitutional Court decides to hear the case it has the power to nullify the new law.
Spain's major opposition party said it may join the constitutional challenge. The Partido Popular was the main opponent to the legislation in Parliament.

The government said it is confident the law will survive any constitutional challenge. On Wednesday, the justice ministry overturned a decision by a court in Catalonia that prevented foreign same-sex couples from marrying.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:25 AM

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

(Salem, Oregon) The conservative group behind last year's successful drive to outlaw same-sex marriage in Oregon has been fined $19,811 for errors in its campaign-finance reports.
The state Elections Division found that the Defense of Marriage Coalition failed to report $58,000 in campaign donations by the required deadlines.

The Coalition was the driving force to amend the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In levying the fine the Division said that it had not found the errors were intentional. Nevertheless, Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said it is the biggest elections handed down by the Elections Division since 2003, when the Oregon Democratic Party was fined $20,000 for irregularities.

The Defense of Marriage Coalition said it will contest the fine before the Oregon Court of Appeals.

"There's no dispute there were some errors on the reporting forms," Kristian Roggendorf, an attorney representing the group, told the Statesman newspaper.

Roggendorf said the appeal will focus on the group's inability to make corrections to campaign reports without incurring penalties.

"It's just a flaw in the system," Roggendorf said.

The amendment was passed by voters last November in reaction to a decision by Multnomah County to allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Thousands of gay and lesbian couples married before the court put a stop to the practice.

In April the state Supreme Court nullified the marriages.

That was followed by a push to legalize civil unions. The Democratically controlled Senate passed a bill that would have given same-sex couples many of the rights of married couples but, the measure was killed earlier this month in the Republican controlled House.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:25 AM

by Steven K. Paulson, Associated Press
Posted: August 10, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) has put her measure banning gay marriage on hold as she launches her battle for re-election, waiting to see what voters and the courts think about the proposed constitutional amendment before she takes any further action.
Musgrave was the sponsor in the House last year of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It failed to get enough votes in July 2004 and was reintroduced this year.

The two-term Republican congresswoman has new worries after GOP leaders rated her as one of the 10 most vulnerable Republicans in the country, even though she represents a heavily Republican district.

The conservative firebrand angered sugar beet growers in her district recently when she backed the Central American Free Trade Act, which would cut subsidies for American producers. Democrats say she is out of step with most of her district in her support for fellow Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign against illegal immigrants.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Musgrave said she is putting her trademark legislation banning legal recognition of gay marriage on hold as states and the courts battle over the issue at the state level.

“We’re kind of waiting to see what happens. There is overwhelming support for marriage to be defined as the union between a man and woman. We’ll see what happens before I run it up again,” she said.

Musgrave dismissed her ranking as one of the 10 most vulnerable by the Retain Our Majority Program, a political action committee set up by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. She said she is confident of winning re-election, despite the fact that her margin last year was one of the narrowest among victorious House incumbents.

Musgrave blamed the close election on changes in campaign finance laws that opened a loophole allowing the creation of new, private groups, known as “527” organizations. They are named for the section of federal tax law that allows them to raise large sums of election money as long as they do not coordinate directly with a candidate’s campaign.

Musgrave said gay rights groups and others spent $2.5 million on television advertising attacking her. One featured a Musgrave-like actress with big hips stealing a watch from a corpse while criticizing her vote against barring nursing homes from charging fees after a patient dies. Another showed a pink-suited Musgrave look-alike picking the pocket of a soldier and referred to her vote to cut veterans benefits in a preliminary bill.

“They were brutal. My hips were not that big. I can’t compete with 527s,” Musgrave said.
Musgrave said she voted for CAFTA because it will help Colorado ranchers, who compose 50 percent of the agricultural interests in her district, while sugar beet growers are only 2 percent. Hers was one of two swing votes that gave President Bush a victory.

She said the impact of CAFTA on the Colorado economy will be small and she had to look at the numbers.

“It’s kind of like having a trade agreement with Sacramento. You kind of got to look at the size of everything,” she said.

Musgrave said she supports Tancredo and opposes Bush on immigration and said the president goes too far when he offers amnesty for illegal immigrants. She said Tancredo has received a lot of support across the nation for his stand against illegal immigrants.

“Tom Tancredo has taken the lead on this. I have been with him on almost every amendment,” she said.

GOP Consultant Katy Atkinson said Musgrave has the numbers on her side this time. She said Musgrave was caught by surprise by the ad campaigns during the last election and won’t let it happen again.

“The Democrats smell some blood because they exacted a price last year,” Atkinson said
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:24 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 11, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A Pennsylvania state court ruled Thursday that the city of Allentown's ordinance protecting LGBT residents from discrimination in housing and employment is constitutional.

Four Allentown landlords went to court in 2003 shortly after the ordinance was enacted, claiming that the law violates their religious rights. The suit accused the city of forcing them to endorse a lifestyle that "they believe is morally harmful."

The landlords were represented by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund which is fighting LGBT civil rights laws in several states.

A county judge agreed with landlords.

Today, a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court overturned the ruling, finding that the city's powers under its 1996 home-rule charter authorized it to police discrimination.
The Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission hailed the ruling as a victory for all citizens within the Commonwealth.

PHRC Executive Director Homer C. Floyd said the reach of the decision goes beyond the city limits of Allentown.

“The Commission became involved in this case as a [friend of the court] for one very important reason: the addition of any protected class is a step in the right direction. It is the subtraction of any that we cannot afford. The Allentown Ordinance supplements and compliments the PA Human Relations Act - it does not compete with us.”

PHRC Chair Stephen A. Glassman said the ruling will help gays in other cities in the state working to get similar ordinances enacted.

“This decision has important ramifications for other home rule cities who may wish to enact local legislation that is more inclusive than the language in the state nondiscrimination statutes.”
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Randall L. Wenger, who represented the landlords said his clients had not decided whether to appeal.

Wenger suggested the judges who ruled today were pandering to gays.

"I think it's difficult for the judiciary to closely follow legal precedent and closely follow statutes if it means they have to make a decision that would appear that they don't respect homosexuals as a group," Wenger said.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:22 AM

by Roger Ward, Canadian Press
Posted: August 11, 2005 9:00 pm ET
(Toronto, Ontario) George Hislop, a pioneer in a decades-old battle to win survivor benefits for widowed same-sex partners, announced Thursday he'd received his first check since declaring victory in his 19-year fight with Ottawa earlier this year.

But Hislop and his lawyer, Douglas Elliot, say there are more than 700 Canadians who don't yet know that they're eligible for benefits as a result of Ottawa's decision last month to start making payments to same-sex survivors on an interim basis.

The federal government began making the payments despite the fact it planned to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to strike down a November 2004 Ontario Court of Appeal decision that ruled in favor of survivors like Hislop.

Problem is, few people got the message, Elliot said Thursday in an interview.

"When the (federal) government announced its decision to make interim payments, it happened in the midst of the same-sex marriage bill and it escaped the attention of the media and the general public," he said.

The Supreme Court challenge is expected to be heard in February, and Ottawa has warned beneficiaries that they may have to repay the money if the ruling is struck down.

Hislop whose partner Ronnie Shearer died almost 20 years ago, said he believes the payments represent a tacit admission from Ottawa that the decision is likely to stand.

"I've waited a long time for this," said Hislop, 78. "We felt our relationships were valid and loving and caring and equal to a heterosexual relationship."

Elliot said he knows of about 1,000 people in Canada who are eligible for benefits as a result of the class-action suit against Ottawa of which Hislop was the original representative plaintiff, but only about 300 have applied for the interim payments.

"Obviously one of our concerns is to make people who are entitled to this pension aware that they can get a check right now."

Hislop said the class action has been a boon to gays and lesbians, particularly those living low-profile lives in smaller communities where making an application for benefits could expose them to anti-gay sentiments.

"There were some people reluctant to come forward because if they lived in a small community it meant in many ways coming out of the closet," he said. "But now, more and more feel free to come forward and make their claim."

As for Hislop, a diabetic in failing health, he said he would put some of the money to use and give himself a treat after years of financial hardship.

"I have been thinking of taking a little holiday, perhaps a short cruise in the winter into warmer weather," he said.

Hislop and others have accused Ottawa of trying to string out the legal fight in the hope that the government's eventual liability would be reduced as some of the claimants die off.

At issue is federal legislation passed in 2000, in response to earlier court rulings on gay rights, that allowed same-sex partners to collect survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
The law restricted payments to those whose partners had died after January 1998. That sparked complaints of discrimination against people who were arbitrarily excluded.

Hislop and his co-claimants want the cut-off point set in 1985, the year in which the Charter of Rights took effect and opened the door for gays and lesbians to eventually win equal treatment with heterosexual couples in pension matters.

The government has been fighting the demand for years. Ottawa says the case could set a precedent for a broad range of other social programs and end up costing the federal treasury up to $80 million.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:21 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: August 12, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Baltimore, Maryland) With slightly more than two weeks before a Baltimore court hears a case seeking to open the state to same-sex marriage LGBT groups are seeking the support of moderate church groups.

Equality Maryland and the ACLU have been crisscrossing the state holding meetings with clergy. It is a novel approach - and seems to be working.

This week the groups, and two of the 19 plaintiffs in the case, spoke to about 50 clergy and laypersons in Frederick.

"The religious community does not speak with one voice on this issue, much to contrary belief," said Meredith Curtis, public education director for the Maryland ACLU.

Many of those who attended the meeting already were supporters of same-sex marriage. Others, like pastor Guy Wenck, of the Jefferson United Church of Christ, came to the meeting to learn more about the issue.

"I haven't made a decision in my mind at this point, but we welcome anyone into our congregation," Wenck said.

Interim Pastor Scott Comrie of the Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ said the the meeting offered an opportunity to bring religious leaders together to debate the issue. The UCC, a gay welcoming denomination, recently voted at its general synod to support same-sex marriage.

Equality Maryland has been involved in educating church leaders since the beginning of the year. In February more more than 70 clergy members signed a document supporting same-sex civil marriages.

The Baltimore City Circuit Court will hear arguments on the case Aug. 30. The suit was first filed two years ago. It alleges that county clerks are violating the state constitution's guarantees of equality by not granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Earlier this year Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich vetoed two gay rights bills. The Republican governor nixed the Medical Decision Making Act and a bill that would have eliminated an unfair property tax levied only on unmarried couples.

Ehrlich later said he would be prepared to support a version of Medical Decision Making Act in the future as long as it did not include a partner registry.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:19 AM

by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press
Posted: August 12, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Orlando, Florida) With gays pleading for acceptance, delegates to a national meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America debated Thursday whether to approve ordination for partnered gays and to give pastors leeway in ministering to same-sex couples. Conservatives warned a change would irreparably damage the church.

The major proposals on the floor were meant as a compromise, aiming to uphold Lutheran restrictions on gays and lesbians who are not celibate, while allowing congregations and bishops to make exceptions in some cases without risking discipline.

During the debate, several delegates worried that ordaining gays would strain relations with other Christian denominations and with the many conservative Lutherans overseas. A vote could come as soon as Friday.

``We would be granting exceptions to biblical, moral standards that have seen approval for 2000 years,'' said David Glesne of the Minneapolis Area Synod.

The Rev. Sara Gausmann of the Lower Susquehanna Synod in Pennsylvania said easing the rules would make it impossible for her to teach children to follow Christian sexual ethics. Many delegates said the truly Christian approach would be to convince homosexuals to change their sexual orientation.

``This debate is not about emotional pleas for love and acceptance,'' said Kara Felde of the Indiana-Kentucky Synod. ``It's about what Scripture says.''

Advocates for full inclusion of gay clerics attempted to counter these arguments by expressing the pain of what they called rejection by their own church.

His voice cracking with emotion, Timothy Mumm of the South-Central Wisconsin Synod said he became suicidal after years in therapy trying to rid himself of his attraction to men. He said a ``faithful, caring pastor'' helped him accept his homosexuality.

James Boline of the Southwest California Synod said he has been with his partner for eight years and is the third-generation of his family to feel a call to ministry.

``I ask your prayers for me refusing to be banished from this church,'' he said.

Frank Petrovic of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod said he was gay and felt called to become a minister when he was in eighth grade. He questioned traditional claims that the Bible condemns gay sex, saying that those opposed to gay ordination were selectively picking scriptural verses to justify their position.

``I'm told I'm a member of the body of Christ, welcome to full participation,'' he said. ``So which human being has the right to tell me that because of who I love my call from God is not valid?''

Many delegates said they were concerned about the impact of any changes on the church itself. One man who said he supported gay relationships, but believed the church wasn't ready for change, so he would vote against the proposals ``with a heavy heart.''

The key measures would:

Affirm the church ban on ordaining sexually active gays and lesbians, but allow bishops and church districts called synods to seek an exception for a particular candidate if that person is in a committed relationship and meets other conditions.

Uphold the denomination's prohibition against blessing of same-sex unions, but give bishops and pastors discretion in deciding how to minister to gay couples.

Call for unity, even though congregants disagree on the issue.

Before the debate began, advocates for full inclusion of gays donned clergy stoles bearing the names of gays and lesbians who had been barred from serving as ministers, and stood silently along the hallway where delegates were filing into the meeting hall.

Conservatives wore stickers of a symbol called the Luther Rose a black cross over a red heart inside a white flower. They were scrambling to sway undecided voters, bringing in nightly speakers, including the leader of a ministry that counsels gays on becoming heterosexual.

In other business, delegates overwhelmingly approved ``interim eucharistic sharing'' with the United Methodist Church, which means churches in both denominations will be encouraged to share Holy Communion and ministries, in a step toward full communion.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 10:13 AM

posted by Anthony # 10:09 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 10, 2005 6:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down requests from both same-sex couples and the Attorney General for a speedy hearing on gay marriage.
Both sides in the marriage issue had petitioned the high court to hear the case now, rather than let it work its way through the appeals court - a process that could take more than a year..
The justices ruled 5 - 0, with one absent, to reject the case.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal last month they asked the Supreme Court to take the case now to avoid unnecessary heartache for gay and lesbian couples hoping to marry.

The petition follows a similar one filed a week earlier by Attorney General Bill Lockyer whose office is opposing overturning the existing ban on gay marriage. Lockyer too argued that to wait a year for the case to reach the justices was unfair to gay couples.

The case is currently headed to the mid level court of appeals where the Attorney General has appealed a March ruling in San Francisco where a judge said that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.
Kramer's ruling was stayed pending appeal.

Today's decision by the Supreme Court came two months after it ruled that gays and lesbians registered as domestic partners with the state are entitled to virtually the same benefits as married couples.

The high court normally does not resolve cases until they have worked their way through the lower courts. One of the last times they did, however, involved gay marriage.

In August, 2004, the seven justices ruled unanimously that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses that spring. The court also voided the 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples sanctioned by the city.

While the issue of same-sex marriage works its way through the courts, a bill to legalize gay marriage is progressing in the state legislature.

But, conservatives, concerned either the courts or the legislature will grant approve marriage have begun a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:15 AM

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

(Rock Hill, South Carolina) A Rock Hill, South Carolina church at the center of a maelstrom of controversy, over its opposition to amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage, is being ousted from the local Southern Baptists even though an investigation found it did nothing wrong.
During Senate hearings on the amendment this spring at the legislature the Rev. Robert Shrum of Oakland Baptist Church spoke out against the measure.

In his remarks Shrum noted that the state already bans same-sex marriage and that an amendment would be "beating up on a marginalized group."

The pastor also told Senators that gay and lesbian members of his church are free to participate in the church and in leadership positions.

The local Baptist Association began an immediate investigation to determine whether the remarks constituted anti-biblical statements and if he was condoning homosexuality.

The inquiry found that Shrum had said nothing contrary to the Bible and recommended taking no action. Nevertheless Shrum was summoned to appear before the association to answer questions about his position on homosexuality and the Bible.

When he refused to appear, saying the church had already answered every question asked by the association, it voted to recommend breaking ties with the church.

One member of the association denied the decision was homophobic.

"It's absolutely not a bash against homosexuals," the Rev. Terry Corder told the Rock Hill Herald.

"In no way do we ever say we are out to get homosexuals. God loves all people, and we recognize that. But we have to take a stance on what's right and what's wrong according to God's word, it doesn't matter if it's homosexuality, if it's murder, if it's telling a lie," Corder said.
Even though the church will not be part of the York Baptists Association it remains - at least for the present - part of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The proposed constitutional amendment passed the legislature in April and will go to voters in 2006.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:45 AM

by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press
Posted: August 9, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Orlando, Florida) Members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America expressed anger, hurt and confusion about what role gays should have in their denomination at a hearing Tuesday on an upcoming vote at their national convention.

More than 400 delegates and observers crowded into a hotel meeting room where Lutheran leaders invited comments about proposals on blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gays who are not celibate.

The Rev. Robert Goldstein, a gay minister at Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chicago, wore a rainbow sash around his cleric's collar as he urged delegates to "go beyond the justice of incrementalism" and remove all limits on gay leadership in the denomination.
"I'm a gay pastor in this church. I serve faithfully. I love it," he said. "Our church must go beyond institutionalizing fear."

No one at Tuesday's hearing directly advocated maintaining the denomination's prohibitions on gays. But some raised questions about the impact of easing the rules.

The Rev. Carol Custead of Hollidaysburg, Pa., said a Lutheran bishop in Kenya had told her that "ties may have to be broken" if the ELCA moved toward approving gay relationships.

"Were any of the global ramifications of this considered?" she asked.

But the Rev. Ann Tiemeyer of the New York Synod said the ELCA should not be paralyzed by the potential fallout.

"We talk about the fear, concern about lack of unity," she said, her voice cracking with emotion. "But we have to remember those we have already lost" because of the denomination's restrictions on gays.

Turmoil over what the Bible says about gay sex has created rifts in Protestant denominations for years. The global Anglican Communion is struggling to stay together after its U.S. province, the Episcopal Church, confirmed its first openly gay bishop two years ago.

The key proposals before the 1,018 delegates in Orlando are based on years of work by a task force on sexuality that tried to find a compromise policy for the 4.9 million-member church.
The measures would:

• Affirm the church ban on ordaining sexually active gays and lesbians, but allow bishops and church districts called synods to seek an exception for a particular candidate if that person is in a committed relationship and meets other conditions.

• Uphold the denomination's prohibition against same-sex blessings, but give bishops and pastors discretion in deciding how to minister to gay couples.

• Call for unity, even though congregants disagree on the issue.

Several Lutherans who stood to speak at the hearing said the proposals were unclear and they did not understand what the impact would be if the policies were approved. A vote is scheduled for Friday but could be delayed by debate.

New England Synod Bishop Margaret Payne, who led the sexuality task force, said the ambiguity was intentional, to give discretion to local congregations.

"The reality is there are a variety of practices across the ELCA," Payne said.

Another church leader noted that fellow members of the Lutheran World Federation, which includes 138 member churches in 77 countries, also have different approaches on gay issues yet remain together.

The head of the ELCA, Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, is also head of the world federation, and said greater acceptance of gays with partners would strain but not sever relations with sister churches overseas.

"This is not a perfect document," said Judy Biffle of Houston, a member of a top ELCA council who worked with the task force. "It was to allow us to continue to live together ... somehow balance the tension within us ... so that we could in some manner move forward for the sake of the church."

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:43 AM

by Derwin Parsons 365Gay.com Atlantic Canada Bureau Chief
Posted: August 10, 2005 12:00 am ET

(Saint John, New Brunswick) Nine years ago Carl Trickey and James Crooks exchanged vows in a blessing ceremony at Centenary Queen Square United Church in Saint John.

Same-sex marriage was illegal in Canada but the United Church - Canada's largest Protestant denomination - had created a liturgy for blessing gay and lesbian couples.

Outside Centenary that hot summer day - August 10, 1996 an angry mob gathered to hurl insults at the couple when they emerged.Almost every year since then, Trickey says, as August 10 rolls around, the threats and abuse begin again. Rocks have been hurled through their windows. Hate mail is delivered to their home. There have been bomb threats. One year a man threatened Trickey's life - he was later arrested and pleaded guilty to uttering threats against him.

But, this year is different. Same-sex marriage is legal across Canada. And Trickey and Crooks will be wed today.

Trickey says attitudes in province are changing - mainly because of the greater visibility of same-sex couples.

"Not everyone's embracing that," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, "but I think that there are certainly a lot more people today than in 1996 who are saying, 'this is an okay thing to have happen'."

Asked if he had any regrets about being a gay pioneer a decade ago Trickey gave an emphatic "no." He said they made the right decision in '96 and the risks have been worth it. "Maybe that helps others from our gay and lesbian community who aren't quite as strong or who aren't quite as willing to put themselves on the front lines, to allow them to come along, and in a more quiet, private way, make that same kind of commitment," said Crooks.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:42 AM

by Gina Holland, Associated Press

Posted: August 9, 2005 7:00 pm ET
(Chicago, Illinois) Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Tuesday that rulings on difficult subjects like gay rights and the death penalty have left courts vulnerable to political attacks that are threatening judicial independence.

Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker."If you say seven or eight or nine members of the Supreme Court feel there's a problem ... you're right,'' he told the American Bar Association.

"It's this edge on a lot of issues.''Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was speaking with Breyer, said: "The politics of judges is getting to be red hot.'' He said Supreme Court rulings on the Pledge of Allegiance and Ten Commandments have captured the public's interest and polarized Democrats and Republicans.

"There's nothing that's not on the table,'' former Solicitor General Theodore Olson said of the court's work, which this fall includes issues like abortion, capital punishment and assisted suicide.Breyer said the nine-member court is focused on constitutional limits on major fights of the day. "We're sort of at the outer bounds. And we can't control politics of it, and I don't think you want us to try to control politics of it,'' he said.

Congressional leaders including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, have criticized justices in recent months. DeLay was particularly critical of the court's refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death and at a death penalty decision that cited international cases.Breyer defended using overseas legal opinions as a guide only, adding, "It has hit a political nerve.''Breyer, Olson and Graham were discussing the future of courts on the final day of the ABA's annual meeting in Chicago.

Also Tuesday, the group was debating whether to endorse federal protection for journalists who refuse to reveal their sources to prosecutors. Passage of such a measure would authorize the organization to lobby Congress, where "shield law'' proposals are pending.Judicial independence has been a major theme at the meeting of the ABA, a 400,000-member group.

The group's policymaking board passed a resolution urging elected officials and others to support and defend judges. New group President Michael Greco of Boston said judges have faced physical threats, and threats of impeachment from Washington political leaders unhappy with court decisions.

"If we do not protect our courts, our courts cannot protect us,'' Greco said.On another subject, Greco defended the ABA's role in checking the background of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and other federal judicial nominees. The committee has spent the past two weeks reviewing Roberts' work on an appeals court and interviewing people who have worked with him.

"The ABA does not, and we will not, protect the interests of any political party or faction, nor the interests of any ideological or interest group,'' said Greco, who previously oversaw the judge review committee.Breyer told the group that the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor is a personal loss and loss for the nation.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:41 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: August 9, 2005 3:00 pm ET
(Tahlequah, Oklahoma) A group of conservative Cherokee Nation council members have filed a new challenge to the marriage of two tribal lesbians.

The move comes a week after a tribal court dismissed a similar lawsuit that held up Dawn McKinley and Kathy Reynolds' effort to have their marriage recognized by the Cherokee Nation.

Todd Hembree, who serves as counsel to the tribe's legislative body and opposes same-sex marriage, went to court arguing the Cherokee Nation had no right to recognize the marriage.
The court ruled that Hembree had no standing to sue and could not show that he suffered any harm by the couple's attempt to be recognized as a married couple.

Tuesday, a group of elected tribal councilors filed a new court challenge.

"We do have standing in this case because we're the ones who make the laws," said Linda O'Leary, one of the councilors behind the suit.

"We don't want gay marriages in the Cherokee Nation. It's that simple," she said.

McKinley and Reynolds exchanged vows in Cherokee in May 2004 after the tribe gave them the certificate without protest. But Hembree's lawsuit brought the injunction that kept it from being filed. The new suit will further delay the filing.

Even if the couple ultimately prevail their case will not set a precedent and open the door for other gay and lesbian Cherokee couples to marry.

After McKinley and Reynolds wed last year, the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.

The women have said they weren't trying to make a political statement by seeking recognition of their marriage and that they found the attention to their effort stressful.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 12:39 AM

posted by Anthony # 12:38 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 8, 2005 7:00 pm ET
(San Francisco, California) The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco is preparing to take up his new job as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican department that has led the attack against same-sex marriage and gay rights.

Archbishop William Levada conducted his last mass in San Francisco on Sunday.

The head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

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

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

Under Ratzinger the Congregation also spoke out against the use of condoms to combat HIV/AIDS.

He also was responsible for ordering Sister Jeannine Gramick to stop ministering to American gays and lesbians. Gramick was a co-founder of New Ways Ministry in 1977 to provide educational programs for gay and lesbian Catholics nationwide.

It is considered unlikely that the Congregation will change much under Levada, who has headed the Archdiocese of San Francisco since 1995.

In 1977 Levada told a Synod of Bishops his experience with gays in San Francisco shows the LGBT community is highly organized.

"The city's human rights commission named me as contributing to a 'climate' of discrimination against homosexuals because I said public recognition should not be given to so-called 'gay marriages,'" he said.

That same year, Levada opposed a city ordinance requiring all agencies contracting with the city to provide spousal benefits to domestic partners of their employees.

Noncompliance could have jeopardized the church's social service contracts with the city, so Leveda exercised pressure on city hall and the city partially gave in, changing the ordinance so that employees of church agencies could designate any legally domiciled member of their household for spousal benefits.

In 2004, helped lead a prayer rally for the defense and promotion of traditional marriage after the city of San Francisco decided to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

"Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the bedrock of the family, and the family unit lies at the heart of every society," he said in a statement leading up to the event. "To extend the meaning of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman, their procreative capacity, and their establishment of family represents a misguided understanding of marriage."

Levada in his new post will also be in charge of dealing with priests who have sexually abused minors. Earlier this year he said that if dioceses paid out claims against them to settle abuse cases the Church could be bankrupted.

Minutes before he began the procession to the altar at St. Mary's Cathedral on Sunday he was handed a subpoena requiring him to give a deposition concerning sex abuse cases against clergy members in another archdiocese.

Levada has never been accused of sex abuse, but victims' groups have claimed that he failed to rigorously pursue allegations of clergy molestation of children.

About 50 members of an abuse survivors group joined by a handful of gays protested outside the Cathedral during the mass.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:26 PM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: August 8, 2005 7:00 pm ET
(London) Gay priests in the Church of England are in open revolt over a Church directive that allows them to have civil unions but requires them to be celibate.

The directive to allow gay clergy to form civil partnerships was issued to comply with Britain's partner registry which comes into effect in December.

But, the requirement that gay priests abstain from sex follows a longstanding Church position. The directive, however, now requires them to give an "assurance of celibacy" to their bishops.
Gay priests surveyed by the Daily Telegraph said they would defy their bishops and refuse to give guarantees they would abstain from sex in their relationships.

One priest told the paper that he was "furious" with the way gay clergy were being treated. The paper said that LGBT rights activists were predicting widespread revolt.

"If a bishop asks me if I am having sex I will say, it's none of your business. Frankly, it is a breach of my human rights for him even to ask," said the Rev Stephen Coles of London.

Coles said that he would not be surprised if several hundred clergy take advantage of the new law and that most would refuse to give celibacy assurances to their bishops.

The Church directive also tells priests that they cannot offer blessing services to same-sex couples.

Already some two dozen clergy have signed a petition denouncing the instruction and promise to offer formal blessings to couples who have entered into civil partnerships.

Conservatives in the worldwide Anglican faith are also angry with the directive.

Archbishop Peter Akinola, the most powerful Anglican leader outside of Britain, is calling for the Church of England to be suspended from the denomination over the issue of civil partnerships.

Akinola, the leader of Nigeria's Anglicans and the chair of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, has been the leader in the attack on church moderates over the role of gays in the faith.
In June leaders of the faith told told the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and the Anglican Church of Canada to withdraw their members from all official entities of the worldwide Communion for three years.

Akinola and other 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 and the decision by an Anglican diocese in Canada to bless same-sex unions.

For more than a year Akinola has been warning that unless the denomination adheres to a conservative line there will be a schism. Church watchers believe his latest demand moves the church closer to a breakup.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:24 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 8, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Nashville, Tennessee) Ninety state legislators, hoping to keep a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on next year's ballot, have asked to join a lawsuit that seeks to block the vote.The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the Tennessee Equality Project, three state legislators and several individuals filed a lawsuit in Davidson County Chancery Court earlier this year challenging the way lawmakers took up the resolution.
The legislators want to be defendants in the lawsuit and be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group. A hearing was scheduled for Wednesday.

The House and Senate overwhelming approved a bill to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. It is set to go before voters on November 2006.

Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, who sponsored the amendment bill, says the ACLU's lawsuit threatens the power of the Legislature, according to an affidavit.

"I, as well as the other intervening legislators, will suffer loss to our legislative power to adopt legislation for ratification by the people," Dunn said.

"In addition, the amendment's sponsors, and I as chief sponsor, risk harm to our personal reputations and integrity as lawmakers if the amendment is declared invalid."

State Attorney General Paul. G. Summers, who argues the lawsuit should be dismissed because the proper procedures were followed, does not think the legislators need to join the lawsuit because he can represent their interests.

The ACLU opposes the intervention of the legislators.

All 46 Republicans in the House and 16 of 17 in the Senate have asked to intervene. The holdout in the Senate was Jamie Hagood of Knoxville, who voted for the amendment.

There were 21 Democrats in the House and 16 in the Senate who also want to be included.

The three legislators who filed the lawsuit are House Democrats Tommie Brown of Chattanooga and Beverly Marrerro and Larry Turner of Memphis.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:23 PM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: August 8, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(New York City) Lawyers for five gay and lesbian couples suing for the right to marry in New York State told an appeals court on Monday that New York City is wrong when it defends maintaining the status quo.

The city is appealing a February ruling by a lower court in Manhattan that said it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

"The city based its appeal on the assertion that it is important to support heterosexual procreation--but in so doing the government turns its back on children raised by same-sex couples who must go without the protections that come with civil marriage," said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the case.

"Over half of all of the same-sex couples in New York are raising children."

In the brief filed today, Lambda Legal argues that the trial court was right when it ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional and denies them a host of protections that couples who are married enjoy.

The brief also says that the city is wrong in basing its appeal on an outdated case that relied on the Book of Genesis.

The city's appeal also argues that the government has an interest in supporting heterosexuals who have children but doesn't explain why it doesn't offer those same protections to children born to same-sex couples.

In her February 4, 2005 trial court ruling, Justice Ling-Cohan wrote that barring "access to civil marriage denies plaintiffs something irreplaceable."

The ruling further stated that, "Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing." The lower court's decision held that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the liberty to marry the person they love just like all other New Yorkers are free to do.

More than 100 organizations and individuals have filed papers as friends-of-the-court to support Lambda Legal's arguments, including the New York County Lawyers' Association, the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, Empire State Pride Agenda, National Organization for Women--New York State, the American Psychological Association and Congregation Beth Simchat Torah.

Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in March 2004 seeking marriage licenses for same-sex couples in New York, arguing that denying them marriage violates the state Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers. The trial court issued its ruling in Lambda Legal's favor in February this year, which New York City decided to appeal.

A second same-sex marriage suit was thrown out by a judge in Ithaca. Judge Robert C. Mulvey ruled that same-sex marriage is the sole prerogative of the Legislature not the courts. That case is also under appeal.

It is expected that eventually the two cases will be combined and heard by the state's highest court. That could take up to a year.

Last Wednesday 365Gay.com reported on a new Pew poll showing support among American voters for same-sex marriage has rebounded to its highest point since July 2003 and for the first time, a majority favors giving gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as married couples.

While 53% of those polled by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press oppose gay marriage, 35 percent said they favor gay marriage. That is the highest number of people supporting same-sex marriage since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took up the marriage issue in 2003, ultimately ruling in November that year that gay couples could wed.

Fifty-three percent, the same number as oppose gay marriage, would permit gays and lesbians to enter into legal arrangements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:21 PM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: August 8, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(New York City) There have been nearly a hundred attacks on gays in New York City this summer - with the two most recent on the weekend.

Two gay men walking through Chelsea on their way to the Roxy - a popular gay club - were beaten early Sunday morning. One of the victims, a 33-year old, sustained a a separated shoulder and cuts to his face. He was treated and released from the hospital.

Police, who declined to identify the victims, said the men were set upon by two men who spewed homophobic slurs as they beat the pair.

The attackers fled the scene but police say they have good descriptions. So far, though, no arrests have been made.

Most of the attacks, in various parts of the city, resulted in minor injuries, but, in June a 32 year old gay Brooklyn man was attacked by three men who beat, kicked and stomped on him while yelling homophobic epithets.

Dwan Prince was in a coma for weeks following the attack.

In June and July alone there were 85 violent hate crimes against NYC gays and the number has been rising almost daily in August.

It is part of a disturbing trend, Clarence Price of the Anti-Violence Project told 365Gay.com.
"Hate crimes against gays jumped in the second half of 2003 and have remained high," Patton said.

"So far this summer they are about six percent above average."

There also have a series of racial and anti-Semitic attacks this summer but " violence against the LGBT community tends to be more severe," Patton said.

He said there appears to be a "hunting dynamic" common to most of the attacks where roving gangs "go looking for gays".

Patton said that the AVP will meet next week with Mayor Bloomberg. "We need real voices from city leadership outside the [gay] community," Patton said, calling Bloomberg's response to violence against gays weak.

The AVP is also considering a broad community effort to combat racism and homophobia. It would include members of the African American and Jewish communities.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:20 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 8, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Salem, Oregon) LGBT civil rights groups in Oregon say they are considering taking their push for civil unions to voters following the death in the legislature of a bill that would have allowed same-sex unions.

"We are not giving up, and we are not going away," Roey Thorpe, the executive director of Basic Rights Oregon told the Associated Press.

"A ballot measure might not have been a reasonable option a few years ago, but it might become one now."

Thorpe said it is one of a number of options the organization will consider over the next month.
Any attempt to get the issue of civil unions on the ballot is likely to be met with stiff opposition from the coalition of conservative groups that won a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Oregon.

The ban, known as Measure 37, is being challenged in court. Oral arguments in the case will be heard Sept. 13.

Thorpe also said that Basic Rights Oregon is mulling an all out campaign against House Speaker Karen Minnis and other Republicans who killed the civil rights bill when they come up for re-election next year.

The legislation would have created a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

It also would have included gays and lesbians in Oregon's nondiscrimination act.

The bill, which had the support of Gov. Ted Kulongoski, passed the Democratically controlled Senate last month.

But Minnis vowed it would never come to a vote in the GOP-run House. She held to that. When the House rose last week the bill died on the table.

"It should come as no great surprise if we decide to target the one person who stood between right and wrong," Thorpe said of Minnis.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:18 PM

posted by Anthony # 11:09 PM

Washington Post

Signs of Progress
Franklin Kameny Keeps Mementos of His Activism in the Attic, Not the Closet
By Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 23, 2005;

Once upon a gay time, before the Stonewall riots in New York, before gay marriage, gay adoption and gay real estate, before "Will & Grace," "The L Word" and cable channels called Logo and Here!, before everyone had a gay relative, there was a man who led a picket line in front of the White House. It was 1965, and the man was Franklin E. Kameny.

"So here we are!" says Kameny, a lifetime later, in his foghorn of a voice. "This is what you wanted to see!"

Boxes of personal papers, official documents, newspaper clippings dating back to the 1950s. Stack after stack of black-and-white posters ("First Class Citizenship for Homosexuals," "Homosexual Americans Demand Their Civil Rights") that he and others brandished at the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department in the 1960s.

The man in the three-piece navy blue suit with a dark blue tie is starting to sweat, just enough that you begin to wonder if a summer afternoon might not be the best time for an 80-year-old to spend nearly three hours in his dusty Northwest Washington attic. But he doesn't mind. He's a vigorous figure -- head stern, jaw locked, shoulders slightly forward.

"People have been asking me, 'What are you going do with all of this?' " says Kameny, his left hand resting on a stack of posters. The posters are written in precise, bold script, and Kameny, who speaks in precise, perfectly constructed sentences, wouldn't have had them any other way. ("Let's make it a tentative 1:30 p.m. meeting, subject to confirmation," he'd said about this interview.)

"People have been legitimately telling me, 'For heaven's sake, you're 80 years old now. Figure out what you're going to do with them.' . . . One of the things I still have to do," Kameny says, laughing, "is write a will."

The modern gay rights movement has been around long enough to worry about losing the artifacts of its history. The AIDS epidemic cut a broad swath through the generation most likely to recall and collect the essential ephemera of the middle 20th century, and the transition of the closeted homosexual to the proudly "queer," a term that makes room for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Social barriers still limit the inclusion of gay history in mainstream museums and archives. More than a few movers and shakers in W ashington's gay community have recently feared that Kameny's trove could accidentally become rubbish once he's gone, if someone doesn't step in and preserve it. Lately, something of a scramble has emerged:
The Stonewall Library & Archives in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; the ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives at the University of Southern California; the New York Public Library; the James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center at the San Francisco Public Library (named after the country's first openly gay U.S. ambassador), to name just a few, are all interested in acquiring Kameny's collection.

"You're talking about a pioneer here, and what he's been keeping all these years are . . . well, they're absolutely historic," says Greg Williams, head of the collection committee at ONE, the country's largest (and best-organized, scholars say) gay archive.

If Kameny decides that his papers belong in Washington, the Library of Congress and the District's Rainbow History Project would certainly be pleased.

"I think they belong here in Washington -- Frank's home," says Deacon Maccubbin, owner of the gay bookstore Lambda Rising, on Connecticut Avenue, who has considered Kameny a mentor since they first met in 1969. "But, in the end, I would like Frank to make the decision."
A great deal of what's in Kameny's attic makes up a living memorial to those paranoid early years of the Cold War, when "gay" meant "happy" and you called a homosexual a homosexual if you had manners, or "a moral risk" or "an undesirable" or "a sexual misfit" if you didn't. It was a time when the question "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" could be followed or preceded by: "Information has come to the attention of the Civil Service Commission that you are a homosexual. What comment do you care to make?"
It was also a time when someone like Kameny -- an astronomer for the Army Map Service, who fought in the front lines during World War II and earned his PhD from Harvard -- could be and was fired in 1957 for being gay. Executive Order 10450, signed by President Eisenhower in April 1953, mandated that "sexual perversion" -- "That meant us," says Kameny, green eyes narrowing -- was grounds for firing a federal employee and for barring the hiring of a homosexual.

Incredulous, Kameny fought the dismissal, eventually petitioning the Supreme Court. In a 61-page brief he wrote himself ("The court had a major footnote in their response objecting to its length," he says), Kameny called the government's anti-homosexual policies "a stench in the nostrils of decent people." The high court refused to hear his case in 1961.

Shortly after, he formed the Mattachine Society of Washington, the country's first "civil-liberties, social action organization dedicated to improving the status of the homosexual citizen through a vigorous program of action," according to a Mattachine brochure in his attic.
"If society and I differ on something, I'm willing to give the matter a second look. If we still differ, then I am right and society is wrong; and society can go its way so long as it does not get in my way," Kameny said back then, according to the book "Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America." "But if it does, there's going to be a fight. And I'm not going to be the one who backs down. That has been an underlying premise of the conduct of my life."

From 1965 to 1969, in what became a yearly Fourth of July protest in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Kameny led the picket line in a three-piece suit. The protesters -- the women in dresses and heels, the men in jackets and ties -- looking so polished that passersby thought they were actors pretending to be homosexuals.

For nearly half a century, Kameny made regular news within gay activist circles -- Kameny did this, Kameny did that. But the name Franklin E. Kameny is not as recognizable as Harvey Milk, the slain San Francisco city supervisor, or Larry Kramer, the writer and AIDS activist. In his formal, buttoned-up manner, Kameny projects the stereotypical air of a Washington busybody (and, as a member of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, he's very much a city history buff). He never again worked as an astronomer -- his passion since age 6 -- but for decades worked as a "self-characterized paralegal." In the course of the 1960s, '70s, '80s and into the early '90s, he became, not by choice but by circumstance, the authority to whom gays seeking security clearances turned.

Through it all, Kameny, a self-described "pack rat" and proud of it, has stored documents, posters, letters, fliers, articles.

He is regarded as the first openly gay person to seek public office, running in 1971 for the District's nonvoting seat in the House of Representatives. ("Two, four, six, eight, gay is just as good as straight," his supporters chanted as they marched down Pennsylvania Avenue the day before the election.)

Kameny, together with the Mattachines, confronted the American Psychiatric Association and won the battle to get homosexuality delisted as a mental illness in 1973. On the national stage and especially on the local stage, he fought anti-sodomy laws for decades. "The District's sodomy law was repealed effective on Sept. 11, 1993," he says, "and that concluded a 30-year 1-month 4-day 11-hour effort on my part.

"The one thing that I want to be remembered for, if only one," he says, "is that in 1968, inspired by the slogan 'Black Is Beautiful,' I coined the term 'Gay Is Good.' "

In last month's gay pride parade in Washington, where colorful and creatively designed posters read "I {heart} my gay son," "Lesbian of Faith" and "Let us tie the knot," Kameny was greeted, with hugs or kisses or handshakes or salutes, by all of the District's elected officials who participated, including David Catania and Jim Graham, the District's two openly gay council members.

To the ruling class of gays in Washington, Kameny is a one-man institution -- patriarch, ambassador and also field general, taking on all manner of lawmakers, clerics and pundits who opposed gay rights.

He lives alone. On Fridays he stops by Lambda Rising to get his copy of the Washington Blade. He never misses an episode of cable TV's "Queer as Folk" and "Six Feet Under" (the latter features the off-and-on relationship of two gay men) and keeps himself occupied with meetings and events for organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance and his neighborhood association. He has no family, except for his 77-year-old sister, Edna, who lives in Long Island. He has remained -- except for a love affair with a man named Keith in what he refers to as the "golden summer of 1954" -- steadfastly single. (But don't think for a minute that he wants your help or needs your sympathy, because he's taking "quite good care" of himself, thank you.)
In May, some of Kameny's friends and admirers threw him a lavish 80th-birthday party with 160 guests at David Greggory, a downtown restaurant. The walls were decorated with Kameny's picket posters.

Charles Francis, a public relations consultant and co-chair of the Republican Unity Coalition, organized the birthday party, and hopes Kameny's collection will someday have a place in the Smithsonian's American History Museum -- Kameny's posters, he says, should be displayed alongside those of the suffragettes.

"Those posters, we all knew, are more than just posters. They have a chi force, a presence," Francis says. "They have an importance, not just as a gay thing but as an American thing. So I told Frank, 'Let's use your posters in the party.' Those posters are so powerful because gays had never spoken out publicly before, had never stepped forward lawfully and constructively into the public square."

"Frank is the closest thing we have to the philosopher king of the gay rights movement. He represents the continuum of knowledge in the history of the movement itself," says Dudley Clendinen, co-author of "Out for Good." He was asked to formally introduce Kameny at the party, and described him as "part Galileo, part Thomas Jefferson, part Brad Pitt, part Mr. Magoo."

"He is someone who stood for what he believed to be right -- against law, organized religion, medical authority and the tide of public opinion all his adult life. It has been almost half a century," Clendinen says, weeks after the party. "The battles against the ps ychiatrists and the sodomy laws have been won. Church doctrine is changing and public opinion has changed enormously. Kameny hasn't changed, but the culture has, and he is one of the reasons."

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:53 AM

by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press
Posted: August 8, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Orlando, Florida) The most divisive issue in American Protestantism will move to the forefront again this week as the 4.9 million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America takes a key vote on what role gays should have in the denomination.

About 1,000 church members will meet beginning Monday in Orlando, where they'll decide whether to ordain gays who are not celibate and whether to bless same-sex unions.
No split is imminent. Conservative Lutherans have planned a November meeting to consider forming an association of like-minded churches - but within the ELCA.

Still, few Lutherans believe church members can reconcile their conflicting views of what the Bible says about homosexuality, and tensions rooted in years of wrangling over the issue are expected to spill over at the Churchwide Assembly, which runs through next Sunday.
Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, head of the Chicago-based denomination, expressed hope that the church would stay unified despite these differences.

"I don't look to a tension-free church as the mark of a vital and healthy church in mission," Hanson said in a recent conference call with reporters. "I think, as a large church body, we have great capacity to be in mission together that is diminished when we are apart."

Turmoil over homosexuality in other Protestant churches is expected to influence the Lutheran vote.

The starkest example is the Episcopal Church, which set off a crisis among fellow members of the Anglican Communion by confirming its first openly gay bishop - V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire - two years ago. Anglicans worldwide are now struggling to remain unified.

Another concern is whether a change in Lutheran policy would affect relations with other Christian groups and within the Lutheran World Federation, which represents 138 churches in 77 countries. Members of the association, which Hanson also leads, differ on gay issues.

The key proposals before the Orlando assembly are based on years of work by a denominational task force on sexuality that tried to find a compromise policy.

The measures would: Affirm the church ban on ordaining sexually active gays, but allow bishops and synods to seek an exception for a particular candidate; uphold the denomination's prohibition against same-sex blessings, but give bishops and pastors discretion in deciding how to minister to gay couples; and call for unity, even though congregants disagree on the issue.
Despite this attempt to find a middle ground, the task force proposals failed to win support from Lutheran groups most active in the gay debate. Those on opposing sides plan, separately, to lobby against the measures on church policy.

The Rev. Roy Harrisville, of the conservative Solid Rock Lutherans, called the proposals "foolish." He and other conservatives said the changes, if adopted, would essentially overturn the ban on ordaining gays without explicitly saying so.

"They recommended they have a rule and not enforce it. Well, that's just silly," Harrisville said.
The Rev. Jeff Johnson of Goodsoil, a coalition of Lutheran groups advocating full inclusion of gays, said the proposals would create a second-class roster of homosexual clergy that would be unjust. Goodsoil members will urge voters to abolish the ban outright.

"Gay and lesbian pastors want to be treated like other pastors and not run through a separate regime that will prove itself to be discriminatory," Johnson said.

The WordAlone Network of conservative churches says its research has found the majority of Lutherans hold traditional views of the Bible. Yet Johnson is convinced the ELCA will eventually approve ordaining gays. "It is clear to me that the trajectory among Lutherans is for inclusion and nondiscrimination and that is where our church is headed," Johnson said.

Karl Donfried, a religion and Bible scholar at Smith College who is an ELCA pastor, emphasized that Lutherans elected to attend the assembly will be voting their conscience, not necessarily reflecting the views of their church district, making it difficult to speculate about the vote.

"What happens in Orlando could take on its own momentum," said Donfried, who joined other conservative theologians in issuing a statement critical of the task force proposals.

Last month, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada voted against allowing local pastors to decide whether to bless same-sex couples. The other major U.S. Lutheran body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, is staunchly conservative on gay issues.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:42 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: August 8, 2005 12:01 am ET

(London) A British court this week will hear a case that could result in the UK recognizing the same-sex marriages of couples wed in those countries were they are legal.

Celia Kitzinger, 48, and Sue Wilkinson, 51, were married in British Columbia in 2003 and want that marriage recognized at home. The High Court will hear their case on Friday.

Kitzinger and Wilkinson say that if the court rules against them they will go to the European Court of Human Rights.

Although they will be able to have a civil union which would give them most of the same rights as married couples the women say it is not enough. Civil unions become legal in the UK in December.

"Our relationship is not a civil partnership, it is a marriage, Kitzinger, a sociology professor at York University, told The Independent.

The UK recognizes marriages performed abroad, but not those of same-sex couples
"Any different-sex couple who did what we did would have had their marriage recognized. I feel insulted about being treated differently than a heterosexual couple," said Kitzinger.

LGBT civil rights activist Peter Tatchell, of the group OutRage, said that it would be "outrageous discrimination" if the court ruled against the couple.

"The ban on same-sex marriage in the UK is institutional homophobia," he said. "All other marriages conducted lawfully abroad are recognized here. Why should same-sex marriage be an exception?"

Same-sex marriage is legal in three European countries - The Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain - as well as in Canada. If Kitzinger and Wilkinson win their case hundreds of same-sex couples would be able to travel to any of those countries and have their marriages recognized in Britain.
It is not known how many couples like Kitzinger and Wilkinson have already married abroad.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:41 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 8, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) A group opposing Arizona's gay marriage initiative says it is well on its way to a multimillion-dollar television and radio advertising campaign.Meanwhile, supporters of the initiative have been collecting signatures since May and say they're confident state voters will approve the constitutional change in November 2006.

Len Munsil, president and general counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy, said opponents' fund-raising efforts are putting more pressure on his group to spread its message.

Members of the opposing group, the Arizona Together Coalition, said they quickly matched a $25,000 pledge by a southern Arizona Realtor and are close to securing an additional $250,000 donation.

The group consists of more than 20 political, civil rights and religious groups, and believes it can raise $2 million or more, said Steve May, the coalition's treasurer.

May said the group's goal is to reach every potential voter in Arizona.The proposed amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit cities, towns and counties from giving legal status to unmarried couples.

Proponents need at least 183,917 signatures by July 2006 to put the issue on the Nov. 7, 2006, ballot.

Backers of the initiative say the institution of marriage is at stake because they fear judges might eventually allow gay marriages.Arizona law prohibits marriages involving same-sex couples, but they are not banned by the state Constitution.
©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:39 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 7, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Chicago, Illinois) Supreme Court nominee John Roberts skipped the American Bar Association's yearly meeting, but big-name conservatives lawyers like Kenneth Starr and Theodore Olson were there to promote his credentials.

Roberts' nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is a watershed for lawyers. And with Senate confirmation hearings just a month away, he was the inescapable subject at the meeting of the country's largest lawyers group.

Top conservatives, from Starr and Olson to Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese and Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo, were attending the meeting and serving as unofficial ambassadors on Roberts' behalf.

"For those people who know him and can vouch for his capabilities and his excellence, this is a good opportunity," Meese said.

Although some leading conservative Christian groups have voiced concern about Roberts' nomination because of his involvement in a gay civil rights case he is being promoted on television, radio and the Internet, with a $1 million campaign by the conservative group Progress for America.

About 10,000 people were in Chicago for the ABA's 128th annual meeting. The group weighs in on all federal judge appointments, with a grade on their qualifications.

A committee has not finished the Roberts' credentials review, but that didn't stop lawyers who are not involved in the process from engaging in their favorite pastime: debating.
"He has covered his tracks well," said Barton Resnicoff of Great Neck, N.Y, while wandering through exhibits of vibrating recliner chairs, custom suit makers and law books.

Said Villanova University law professor Lewis Becker: "Covered his tracks suggests something devious. We don't know that."

Resnicoff responded, "He has taken positions but not taken positions."

Roberts, a 50-year-old federal appeals court judge, went to Washington as a law clerk to Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist in 1980 and never left. The Harvard Law School graduate worked in the administrations of President Reagan and Bush's father, and he became a wealthy private practice appellate lawyer. He has been a judge for two years.

Thousands of pages of documents that have been released so far from Roberts' government service reveal a plucky young man with ardent conservative views but nothing concrete on how he will vote on matters like abortion and the death penalty. O'Connor was a moderate and an influential swing voter.

As a private attorney, Roberts did free legal work for a death row inmate, welfare clients and gay rights activists. But his government memos suggest he would aggressively move to limit civil rights.

Starr, who was solicitor general and Roberts' boss during the first Bush administration, was surrounded at meetings and receptions by people hungry for any tidbit about Roberts.
Olson, another former colleague, was headlining events on Monday and Tuesday, the final days of the meeting.

Roberts is an ABA member but has not been especially active in the group, which has clashed with the Bush White House over presidential war powers and even whether the group should be involved in peer reviews of judges.

In the past, the association has taken stands for abortion rights and a moratorium on capital punishment.

"The ABA has been regarded as a branch of the Democratic Party," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia Law School professor and a former Roberts' colleague in the government who was at the meeting.

But Merrill said Roberts' successes as a Supreme Court lawyer - he won 25 of the 39 cases he argued there as a private practice and government lawyer - make it easy to sell his credentials to lawyers.

"Even very liberal lawyers would respect that," he said.

©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 1:37 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 5, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Salem, Oregon) The Oregon Legislature ended its second-longest session ever at 6:20 a.m. Friday, allowing a bill that would have provided civil unions for same-sex couples to die without coming to a vote.

The bill would have created a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

The legislation also would have included gays and lesbians in Oregon's nondiscrimination act.
The bill, which had the support of Gov. Ted Kulongoski, passed the Democratically controlled Senate last month.

But Republicans who dominate the House dug in their heels - first, gutting the legislation and then deciding not to allow it to go to a full vote on the floor.

The death of the bill came as little surprise. House Speaker Karen Minnis said two weeks ago she had no intention of allowing a vote.

In an interview, Minnis said Oregonians decided the issue last fall when they joined with voters in 10 other states in passing gay marriage bans.

"This issue has been greatly discussed; it's been voted on," said Minnis, who over the years has gained a reputation as a social issues conservative.

The gay marriage debate intensified in Oregon in early 2004, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Some 3,000 same-sex couples were married in the county, which includes the city of Portland. In April the state's highest court ruled that the marriages null and void but indicated that in light of the marriage amendment the legislature could provide civil unions.

Supporters of civil unions say they will try to reintroduce the measure in the next session of the legislature.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:31 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 5, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(New York City) Deep divisions over the role of gays in both the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches show no sign of resolution.

In Saginaw Michigan this week the priest of an Episcopal church was removed by his bishop. The Rev. Eugene Geromel, vicar of St. Bartholomew's Church was told he could no longer serve because of his opposition to church policy of accepting gays.

The move by Bishop Edwin Leidel, a liberal on the gay rights issue, wasn't unexpected. Geromel and St. Bartholomew's Church have been at odds with the Episcopal Church for more than five years.

The battle reached a high point in 2003 with the ordination of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire.

Geromel is not the first Episcopal priest removed for objecting to the denomination's support for gays.

Last month Connecticut Episcopal Bishop Andrew Smith suspended one of six priests accused of refusing to recognize his authority in the wake of Smith's support for Robinson.

A group of 14 conservative bishops have said they would welcome the ousted priests in their dioceses.

The worldwide Anglican faith has been at odds over the role of gays since Robinson's election.
Meanwhile, a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in trouble with her denomination after performing ceremony blessing a same-sex couple. Announcements of the ceremony called it a marriage, and so did Dr. Janet Edwards when she performed the service in Pittsburgh.
Church rules allow a blessing service over a gay couple so long as it is not represented as a marriage.

A judicial complaint has been filed against Edwards. If she is found guilty she could be removed from her ministry.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:28 PM

Forcing commissioners to perform ceremony would prevent many from holding the job

The Edmonton Journal

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Contrary to "Latest marriage gambit bad idea" (Editorial, July 28), Justice Minister Ron Stevens's attempt to protect marriage commissioners from having to officiate at same-sex marriages should be welcomed as a crucial safeguard of religious freedom and freedom of conscience in Alberta.

The editorial argues that allowing marriage commissioners to opt out will lead to "anarchy" as other officials will refuse to implement various laws. Doubtful.

Still, which direction is more dangerous? Too much freedom or not enough?

By requiring all marriage commissioners to officiate at same-sex marriages, we are in effect barring members of certain religions from holding this public post. Faithful Catholics, Muslims, Jews, many Protestants, and others whose conscience does not support same-sex marriage no longer need apply.

The message is that these citizens are not welcome or equal in Canada. In the name of tolerance, a certain belief system will have ostracized all but those who adhere to it.

And why stop there? Perhaps we should require governors general, prime ministers and Supreme Court judges to personally support same-sex marriage. After all, it would be embarrassing to Canada internationally if such leaders personally believed their behaviour was immoral.

It may not seem like a big deal to squeeze out outdated, "squeamish" commissioners when one assumes that the legislation is a step forward, and that opposition to same-sex marriage is illegitimate.

But we must safeguard religious freedom and the freedom of conscience, regardless of whether we agree with the belief or feel personally affected. These freedoms are inseparable parts of the freedom of thought and expression of every citizen. If we allow these freedoms to recede for any group, we may feel the effects on our own skin only too late.

As Martin Niemoeller said about the complacency of Germans before the First World War:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist;
"Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a socialist;
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist;

"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew;
"Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out."

Lea Z. Sevcik, Edmonton

© The Edmonton Journal 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:04 AM

August 5, 2005
New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGand DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination.

Judge Roberts, at the time an appellate lawyer for the Washington firm of Hogan & Hartson, did not write legal briefs or argue the case, lawyers involved said. But they said he did provide invaluable strategic guidance working pro bono to formulate legal theories and coach them in moot court sessions.

Judge Roberts did not disclose his role in the case to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which asked about pro bono work in a questionnaire. News of his participation was first reported Thursday in The Los Angeles Times, and it set off an immediate scramble on both the left and the right, upending perceptions of the nominee in both camps.

The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced.

The 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, is considered a touchstone in the culture wars, and it produced what the gay rights movement considers its most significant legal victory. By a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Colorado Constitution that nullified existing civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians and also barred the passage of new antidiscrimination laws.

"It's one more piece of the puzzle as we keep trying to find out who John Roberts is," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, the advocacy group that helped bring the Romer case. "Where does this fit in on his judicial philosophy and his view of the Constitution?"
Indeed, Judge Roberts's participation seems to stand in contrast to the picture that has emerged from his days as a young lawyer with the Reagan administration, when he advocated a more conservative approach to civil rights and voting rights. Lawyers in the Romer case said Thursday that Judge Roberts had not discussed its substance with them, but seemed to approach it more as an intellectual challenge.

Even so, reports of his involvement echoed on conservative talk shows Thursday, generating outrage and disbelief. "There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?' "
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Judge Roberts's involvement was minimal. "As in any other case," Ms. Healy said, "it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions."

The lead plaintiffs' lawyer in the Romer case, Jean Dubofsky, said Thursday that she sought out Judge Roberts at the recommendation of Walter Dellinger, then a senior official in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton. Ms. Dubofsky, a former justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she was specifically seeking a conservative who could provide her an insider's road map, of sorts, helping her to anticipate objections from some of the court's more conservative members, like Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Judge Roberts, who once clerked for Justice Rehnquist and now serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, spent about six hours on the case, Ms. Dubofsky said. "He told me, 'You have to know how to count and to get five votes, you're going to have to pick up the middle.' "

And then, she said, Judge Roberts provided explicit instructions on how to do just that, telling her that she would have to prove to the court it did not have to overturn a previous case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a ban on homosexual sodomy. He peppered her with questions in a moot court session.

"So when I was asked by Justice Scalia if they would have to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick to rule my way, I said no," Ms. Dubofsky said, adding, "In this particular case if you wanted to get the U.S. Supreme Court turned around on gay rights issues, you didn't have to win every gay rights case floating around out there."

Ultimately, in a forceful opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court said the Colorado provision had put the state's gay men and lesbians in a "solitary class," singling them out in violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee in a manner that was so sweeping as to be inexplicable on any basis other than animus. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the justices to whom Judge Roberts is most often compared, issued a blistering dissent.

The Romer case proved to be the first step in the Supreme Court's ultimate disavowal of the Bowers decision in its 2003 ruling in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. That ruling, which overturned a Texas sodomy law, has drawn the ire of conservatives at a time when the Supreme Court is expecting still more cases involving gay rights. In November, the court is scheduled to hear a case that grows out of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gay service members. The question is whether Congress can withhold federal money from universities that restrict military recruiters' access to their students, in an effort to support gay rights. Judge Roberts would join in hearing that case, should he be confirmed by the first Monday in October, as Republicans hope.

Judge Roberts did not mention the Romer case in the response he filed to a questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee, which asked about pro bono work. Committee Democrats said they were not troubled by the omission, because it did not appear that Judge Roberts had spent a significant amount of time on the case. He did list two other cases, including one in which he represented welfare recipients in the District of Columbia who were challenging cuts in their benefits.

Walter A. Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, and who worked extensively on the Romer case, said about a dozen lawyers at the firm assisted. He said he had little trouble recruiting Judge Roberts.

"It looked like a challenging, interesting, provocative, important case," said Mr. Smith, who is now the executive director of the D. C. Appleseed Center, a nonpartisan public interest legal group. "Everybody knew that, and I think he believed it was worth his time."

Mr. Smith said part of his job was to match lawyers with cases that would intrigue them, and that his initial instinct was that Judge Roberts would be willing, despite his conservative bent. In the past, Judge Roberts has made it a point to note that lawyers do not always agree with their clients.

"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it so offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum he had no concerns that would rise to that level."

Liberal critics of Judge Roberts, however, continued to assail him on Thursday as a foe of civil rights. "John Roberts was a key member of a right-wing policy team that waged a comprehensive assault on fundamental constitutional rights," said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, "and that is most relevant to his qualification to be on the Supreme Court."

While some conservatives, including Dr. Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, said they were unconcerned about Judge Roberts's involvement in the Romer case, others signaled that the report had at least raised questions in their eyes.

James C. Dobson, chairman of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, said Judge Roberts's work in the case was "not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," though he said it did not necessarily mean that Judge Roberts shared the plaintiffs' views.
Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life and one of the few conservatives to raise questions about Judge Roberts, said his work on the case was "cause for more caution and less optimism" about his nomination.

Linda Greenhouse contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:02 AM

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: August 4, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Sydney, Australia) Australian gay activists have called a "National Day Of Action" to demonstrate against the country's ban on same-sex marriage.

Australian Marriage Equity says it will hold protests and rallies throughout Australia on Saturday, August 13.

The event coincides with the first anniversary of the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 which banned the recognition of overseas same-sex marriages and defined marriage in Australia as between one woman and one man.

“Our families contribute to the nation like every other family yet they are still being denied the right to marry or the ability form federal de facto relationships” said AME National Convenor Luke Gahan.

A recent survey of the Victorian Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender community reported that 98% participants wanted some form of legal recognition to be available for same sex couples, with 80% nominating marriage as the preferred status.

“The call for same-sex marriage in Australia is growing every day and has spilled over into the wider community who no longer believe it to be fair or decent to out law same-sex marriage” said Gahan.

Same-sex marriage is legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and the state of Massachusetts.

Even though it will not be legal in Australia Gahan will marry his fiancé Matthew Culleton on in September in Vancouver.

Gahan said he and Culleton will live in Canada legally married for one year adding that when they return home they hope the law is changed.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: August 4, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(London) It doesn't come into effect until December but already Britain's new law allowing civil unions for same-sex couples is in trouble.

The law creates a civil partner registry. Gay and lesbian couples will have inheritance rights to their partners' estates, hospital visitation rights, and the right to receive the spouses share of their partner's pension.

But, registering the partnerships falls to local governments and several are refusing. On top of that a growing number of local registrars are refusing to conduct the ceremonies - taking advantage of a clause in the law that allows for "conscientious objectors".

The latest council to refuse to allow civil unions is Bromley a heavily gay area of London. But, registrars refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies in dozens of other communities that are planning to set up registries could make the law unworkable LGBT rights groups say.

In some areas of the country there may only be one or two registrars forcing same-sex couples to go to other areas. Many of those declaring "conscientious objector" status are in Scotland.
The Association of Registrars and Celebratory Services has called on all registrars to officiate at the services, saying the ceremonies should be "conducted universally up and down the country".
Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights group in Britain said "homophobic registrars" should not be allowed to overshadow the start of gay unions.

Even in those areas where same-sex couples can register and are able to find someone to conduct the ceremony venues for gay unions are not ready.

A survey taken by Pink Weddings, the UK's biggest gay wedding company shows that 35% of wedding venues are not prepared or not willing to host the ceremonies.

Stonewall says it wants the government to immediately bring in legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services, which would prevent venues blocking gay ceremonies and should also compel local authorities to offer gay couples the same right to a ceremony as straight couples.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 8:58 AM

In 1996, activists won a landmark anti-bias ruling with the aid of the high court nominee.

LA Times
By Richard A. SerranoTimes Staff WriterAugust 4, 2005

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.The lawyer who asked for Roberts' help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

Roberts did not mention his work on the case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, released Tuesday. The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them.

Smith said the omission was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in Romer vs. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing."John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith said Wednesday. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less."

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation, she immediately was referred to Roberts.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky said. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial."

"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.She said Roberts served on a moot court panel as she prepared for oral arguments, with Roberts taking the role of a Scalia-like justice to pepper her with tough questions.When Dubofsky appeared before the justices, Scalia did indeed demand specific legal citations from the lower-court ruling. "I had it right there at my fingertips," she said."John Roberts … was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she said.

"He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."Dubofsky said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative violated the "equal protections" clause of the Constitution.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff lawyer for New York-based Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians, called it the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement."In the blistering dissent, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."

The case was one of several Roberts worked on pro bono at Hogan & Hartson, a prominent Washington law firm that expects partners to volunteer time in community service.

In his answers to the Senate questionnaire, Roberts talked generally about his volunteer work."My pro bono legal activities were not restricted to providing services for the disadvantaged," he wrote, explaining that he often donated behind-the-scenes time and expertise on projects.

He said he participated in a program sponsored by the National Assn. of Attorneys General to "help prepare representatives of state and local governments to argue before the Supreme Court." He said that several times a year he reviewed briefs in "selected cases" and met with state or local attorneys in moot court before their Supreme Court appearances.

He also said he had worked with high school and college students and teachers "studying the legal system and the Supreme Court." And he said he had "actively participated on a pro bono basis in efforts to achieve legal reform."

Roberts personally handled two pro bono cases.

In the first, Roberts was asked by Rehnquist — for whom he previously had been a clerk — to represent a man who had been convicted of Medicaid fraud, sentenced to prison and fined $5,000. The federal government also had filed a civil suit in the case and won a $130,000 judgment.

In U.S. vs. Halper, Roberts' first appearance before the high court, he argued that adding a civil penalty to a criminal one was double jeopardy and therefore unconstitutional.In 1989, the court agreed unanimously. Eight years later the court reversed itself, again 9 to 0.

The second case was a Washington, D.C., welfare case that involved about 1,000 residents who lost benefits when the city cut programs amid a budget crisis.Roberts, representing homeless people and others who could not work because of illness or injuries, argued before an appellate court that the city had erred in not first formally notifying recipients about the change in benefits.

The court ruled against him in December 1995 in one of Roberts' few appellate losses.According to others who worked on the case, Roberts asked the court to reconsider, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court declined to hear the case."Mr. Roberts was essentially the principal counsel," recalled R. Scott McNeilly, a staff lawyer with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. "He was very involved.

"When the welfare recipients lost in the courts, McNeilly said, most "were put out on the streets. They lost the money they were using to take the bus to see a social worker or money they were paying to a friend to sleep on his couch."In the questionnaire, Roberts described them as "the neediest people" in Washington.

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:30 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: August 4, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Washington) President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court reportedly was instrumental in winning a landmark 1996 gay civil rights case before the high court.

The Los Angeles Times reports that John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights groups, helping them prepare their arguments to present to the court.
The case was Romer vs. Evans, which sought to have struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
The coalition won the case in a 6-3 decision.

At the time gay rights leaders activists described it as the movement's most important legal victory.

The three dissenting justices were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - the three jurists to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology.

The Times reports that Roberts was in private practice at Hogan & Hartson specializing in appeals court case at the time and took the case as part of the firm's pro bono service.
He neither argued the case before the Supreme Court nor did he write the legal briefs but several lawyers involved in the case told the Times that Roberts he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and helping them prepare the oral arguments.

Walter A. Smith Jr who headed up the bono department at Hogan & Hartson, told the Times that Roberts didn't hesitate when the case was suggested.

There is no record of Roberts working on any LGBT rights cases and he does not mention the 1996 case in his 67-page response to a series of questions put to him by the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the questions the committee asked what pro bono cases he had worked on.
Smith told the Times that it was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in the case.

One of the lawyers who did argue the case before the Supreme Court also recalls Roberts contribution.

Jean Dubofsky, the lead attorney on the case and a former member of the Colorado Supreme Court, told the Times Roberts' advice was crucial to the win because he had a good idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that was conservative and had not been receptive to gay rights, she told the Times.

Roberts role in the case has gone unnoticed by a new generation of gay activists who have expressed concern about his appointment.
©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 7:26 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: August 3, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Washington) Support among American voters for same-sex marriage has rebounded to its highest point since July 2003 and for the first time, a majority favors giving gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as married couples.

While 53% of those polled by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press oppose gay marriage, 35 percent said they favor gay marriage. That is the highest number of people supporting same-sex marriage since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took up the marriage issue in 2003, ultimately ruling in November that year that gay couples could wed.
Following the ruling support for gay unions plummeted and in last year's election 11 states banned same-sex unions in their constitutions.

But, as the pollsters note, the bigger news is the growing support for civil unions and legal protections for gay couples.

Fifty-three percent, the same number as oppose gay marriage, would permit gays and lesbians to enter into legal arrangements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.

"This is exactly what the right wing is afraid of," Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage matters told 365Gay.com.

"If we stick with the conversation and persist in engaging the non-gay public on marriage equality the pubic will move to fairness."

The questions on same-sex couple rights were part of a broader series of surveys by Pew between July 7 and 17, prior to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Gay marriage did not figure in the top five issues people believe the Supreme Court should deal with. Abortion topped the list, followed by terror suspect rights, religious displays, lawsuit award limits, and affirmative action.

A consistent majority of Americans (65%) are opposed to overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion. But most Americans also favor restrictions on abortion. Nearly three-quarters (73%) favor requiring women under age 18 to get parental consent before being allowed to get an abortion.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:34 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 3, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(St. Louis, Missouri) Dozens of same-sex couples went to courthouses and city halls across Missouri today seeking marriage licenses in a peaceful protest marking the first anniversary of the state's constitutional ban on gay nuptials.

Throughout the state the couples were told that because of Amendment 2, which defines marriage in Missouri as only between a man and a woman, they could not receive marriage licenses.

Still organizers said the protest was a success. Erick Semenske, the leader of the St. Louis protest, said that it "put a face" on the people affected by the amendment.

Semenske and his partner Tim Coleman were among those turned away at the St. Louis courthouse. Semenske and Coleman were told that they could register as domestic partners but, the couple said that reduces them to second class citizens.

"We're committed couples, Semenske told the Post-Dispatch just prior to the event.

"We want the same recognition that heterosexual couples enjoy. We don't want to devalue marriage, we want to enhance it."

A number of organizations across the state sponsored the protests, but the St Louis chapter of Log Cabin Republicans was not among them.

It said that the protest could hurt gays.

"This is an unproductive and negative tactic that does nothing more than drive hate and resentment among Missourians toward the gay and lesbian community," chapter President Charles Stadtlander told the paper.

Stadtlander said it would have been more productive to focus on getting civil unions legalized.
PROMO, the state's largest LGBT rights group and a supporter of today's demonstration, said it was working to get a civil unions bill introduced in the legislature and to thwart attempts to bar same-sex couples from adopting children or acting as foster parents.

Last August 4, Missouri became the first state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the wake of the first same-sex weddings in Massachusetts. In November, 11 more states passed gay marriage bans.

In July, a judge ruled that an unwritten rule used by the state to ban gays from becoming foster parents was unconstitutional. Since then some conservative lawmakers have threatened to bring in a bill to formalize the rule.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:32 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: August 3, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Tahlequah, Oklahoma) A tribal court has dismissed a lawsuit that held up a lesbian couple's effort to have their marriage recognized by the Cherokee Nation.

In a ruling filed Wednesday, the tribe's Judicial Appeals Tribunal said that Todd Hembree, the tribe member and attorney whose lawsuit blocked the filing of a tribal-issued marriage certificate issued to Dawn McKinley and Kathy Reynolds, had no standing to sue and could not show that he suffered any harm by the couple's attempt to be recognized as a married couple.
The women haven't decided whether they will try to refile the certificate in order to have their union officially certified by the Cherokee Nation. Because of tribal sovereignty, Cherokee Nation marriage certificates are recognized just like Oklahoma marriage licenses.

"We're excited, we're happy," Kathy Reynolds said Wednesday. "We're determining what our next step is going to be."

The Owasso couple, who are both members of the tribe, exchanged vows in Cherokee in May 2004 after the tribe gave them the certificate without protest. But Hembree's lawsuit brought the injunction that kept it from being filed.

Hembree, who serves as counsel to the tribe's legislative body, believes that tribal law at the time clearly prohibited same-sex marriage. He said he had standing to bring the lawsuit as a private tribal citizen because all tribal members are harmed when laws are violated.
He said the court's decision ends the case for him.

"That is a decision by the highest court in our land," Hembree said. "There's now no legal prohibition to having their marriage certificate recognized."

Lena Ayoub, an attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights who has been representing the women, said they still want the Cherokee Nation to recognize their marriage but also value their privacy and are considering how to proceed.

After the couple wed last year, the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.

McKinley, 33, and Reynolds, 28, have said they weren't trying to make a political statement by seeking recognition of their marriage and that they found the attention to their effort stressful.
Last year, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to recognize same-sex marriages. Other states, including Oklahoma, banned such unions.

The Cherokee Nation is not the only American Indian tribe to take up the issue. In June, the Navajo Nation's tribal government voted to override its president's veto of a measure banning same-sex marriage on the nation's largest American Indian reservation.

McKinley previously said the couple opted to go to the tribe because it "was the only way we walk into a courthouse anywhere in Oklahoma and they're not just going to laugh at us."
©Associated Press 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:30 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 3, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Lincoln, Nebraska) The federal judge who struck down Nebraska's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage now has ordered the state the pay the legal fees of the gay couples who took the ban to court.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon's order requires Nebraska to pay the nearly $157,000 incurred by Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.

He then stayed the ruling until all appeals in the case are completed. If the state continues to lose in court it could be on the hook for more than three times the amount. But, Bataillon's award would be reversed if the state wins on appeal.

In May Bataillon ruled that the amendment 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, bans any and all forms of legal recognition for same-sex relationships, including domestic partnerships and other basic protections.

In his ruling 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."

He also noted 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.

Bataillon 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 state attorney general's office has appealed the ruling to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The court has not set a date to hear oral arguments.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:28 PM

by Brad Cain, Associated Press
Posted: August 3, 2005 2:00 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) Partisan tensions reached a boiling point Tuesday night when the Republican majority in the Oregon House pushed through a rules change that Democrats charged was aimed at blocking any attempt to resurrect a civil unions bill for same-sex couples.

A civil unions measure to open up to same-sex couples hundreds of benefits only available to married couples has passed in the Democrat-run Senate, but has been stymied in the House by opposition from House Speaker Karen Minnis and other GOP leaders.

Backers of the civil unions bill hadn't given up hope of using a procedural move to force a House debate on the issue, but that possibility was foreclosed when the House GOP leaders won adoption of a change in the chamber's operating rules.

After a tense exchange between Minnis and House Democratic Leader Jeff Merkeley, the House voted along party lines to jettison a long-standing rule that allows individual lawmakers to try to pull stalled legislation out of committee and to the House floor for debate.

Minnis disputed the Democrats' assertion that the rule change was aimed at blocking civil unions. She said the change was needed to help bring the 2005 session to a close and to prevent Democrats from further "abusing" House rules for their own political gain.

She noted that Democratic lawmakers earlier in the day had used that maneuver to try to force a debate on four different bills pending in committee, including one Senate-passed bill to clamp a limit on interest rates charged by payday loan shops around the state.

Democrats have used that parliamentary move nearly a dozen times so far this session — all without success — to try to score political points with voters by highlighting bills that have no chance of winning passage in House, Minnis said.

"It was their behavior that prompted the change," the Wood Village Republican said.

But Merkley, the House Democratic leader, argued that House Republicans were engaging in heavy-handed tactics to kill the civil unions legislation.

"This change is before us for one reason — it's about preventing members of this body from debating civil unions," Merkley said.

When Merkeley persisted with that line of argument during Tuesday night's debate, Minnis interrupted him several times, finally ruling him out of order. She then asked Merkley to meet with her in her office to discuss the dispute.

A few minutes later, Merkley returned to the House floor, and in his closing remarks he urged the House to reject what he called a "petty rule change."

"It is the wrong note on which to end this session," Merkley said, referring to efforts by House and Senate leaders to try to bring the 2005 Legislature to a close within the next few days.
Basic Rights Oregon, the state's leading gay rights group, called the rule change an "outrageous" move by Minnis and House GOP leaders to bottle up civil unions legislation.

The group noted that the Senate's civil unions bill already had been "gutted" by a House committee, and that Tuesday's rules change was aimed at making sure supporters didn't have an opportunity to pull to the House floor another civil unions bill that was filed last week.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:27 PM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: August 3, 2005 11:00 am ET

(San Francisco California) The conservative group behind a proposed amendment to bar gays from marrying in California has filed suit against Attorney General Bill Lockyer over the wording his department has used to describe the measure.

Lockyer's office approved the petition late last month - allowing VoteYesMarriage to begin collecting signatures to get the question put on November 2006 ballot. To get the 598,105 names needed the group would need to have nearly a million signatures to avoid duplication and other errors or inconsistencies.

The proposed amendment would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions and nullify the state's landmark domestic partner benefits law.

But VoteYesMarriage is furious at the title and and wording Lockyer's office is using in the official summary of the initiative. The suit filed Tuesday in Sacramento Superior Court seeks to have the wording changed.

The Attorney General has given the measure the title: "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights." VoteYesMarriage called for the question to be titled: "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative."

Lockyer's summary of the amendment also specifies that the initiative would ban not only gay marriage but also partner benefits.

VoteYesMarriage, in papers filed with the court, accused Lockyer of inaccurately describing the measure.

"The Attorney General has failed to carry out his duty to prepare a neutral, factual title and summary," said Mathew Staver, the lawyer representing VoteYesMarriage.

"He is impeding a fair vote on this important issue because he knows that Californians already have once voted to protect marriage as one man and one woman and will do so again."
Staver's Liberty Counsel law firm is representing conservative groups fighting same-sex marriage in a number of states.

VoteYesMarriage said that it would not begin circulating the petition and collecting names until the court makes its ruling.

"The title and summary is 100 percent accurate in describing what the initiative would do," said Lockyer spokesperson Tom Dresslar. "It wipes out registered domestic partner rights and obligations that currently exist in California law."

Meanwhile, Lockyer's office also has approved two other proposed amendments to the state constitution to bar same-sex marriage and deny domestic partner rights.

Equality California, the state's largest LGBT civil rights group, is already gearing up to fight the three proposed amendments.

©365Gay.com 2005

Discuss

posted by Anthony # 11:25 PM

August 2, 2005
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON, Aug. 1 - Gov. Mitt Romney says he will decide in the next few months whether to run for the Republican presidential nomination. And if he does, his résumé will carry him a long way. He is the high-profile governor of a prominent state. He has a background as a turnaround specialist in the business world and as the savior of the scandal-plagued 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is telegenic and articulate, and he is wealthy.

But as Mr. Romney tries to appeal to his conservative party, his biggest nemesis may end up being the moderate image he created for himself in getting elected in Massachusetts, possibly the bluest state in America, where only 14 percent of the voters are registered Republicans.
"I think it's a question that people may ask at some point," John Campbell III, a Republican state senator in California, said after Mr. Romney spoke to Orange County Republicans in June. "How did this guy get so many Democrats in Massachusetts to support him?"

That is something that many people are asking, especially after last week, when Mr. Romney took conservative positions on two controversial subjects - abortion and the morning-after pill - that appeared to contradict the more moderate stances he had made in his campaign for governor in 2002 and before.

Mr. Romney's actions come as two other potential Republican presidential candidates, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, are also making carefully calibrated decisions on volatile social issues.

Last week, Mr. Frist defied President Bush and many conservative supporters by supporting a bill to increase federal financing for embryonic stem cell research. And this week aides to Mr. Pataki announced that he would veto legislation making the so-called morning-after pill available without a prescription.

Mr. Romney vetoed a similar morning-after bill, but he went much further than Mr. Pataki, who supports abortion rights. Mr. Romney labeled the morning-after drug an "abortion pill" - not just emergency contraception, as the Food and Drug Administration calls it - and wrote an opinion article for The Boston Globe saying that he did not believe that abortion should be legal.
Mr. Romney, who in the past had said that abortion should be "safe and legal" and that he supported the "substance" of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, wrote in the article that his views on abortion had "evolved and deepened."

His actions stirred dismay among some moderate Republicans and prompted predictions that he would seek national office. They also underscored the challenge that Mr. Romney is likely to face in primaries where conservative voters often hold the upper hand.

"Within the Republican Party, the nominating process, Massachusetts has been kind of the liberal state that the conservative Republicans like to point at," said Paul Cellucci, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts who until recently was President Bush's ambassador to Canada. "That kind of becomes something he has to overcome."

In recent months, Mr. Romney has appeared to be trying to do just that by emphasizing conservative positions on combustible social issues like gay marriage, stem cell research and the death penalty. As he has traveled to strategic states like South Carolina and Iowa, he has portrayed himself as a conservative fish swimming upstream in Massachusetts, or, using a metaphor with more macho appeal, as "a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Mr. Romney said he vetoed the morning-after pill legislation because the pill could in some cases prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Although the veto was symbolic - the Democratic-controlled legislature is certain to override it - Mr. Romney's actions angered many of those who supported him for governor in 2002 on the belief that he was more moderate.
"It's not our style to oppose any Republican candidate, but we're calling Mitt on this," said Jennifer Blei Stockman, national co-chairwoman of the Republican Majority for Choice. Ms. Stockman said that Mr. Romney sought the group's endorsement in 2002 and received it only after making the case that he supported keeping abortion legal.

"We feel very betrayed," she said, but added, "If it weren't for the waffling on these issues, he probably would make a good president."

Although some conservatives welcomed Mr. Romney's actions last week, others were skeptical.
"Most pro-life voters aren't looking for 'evolving' views among candidates," Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for bioethics for Focus on the Family, wrote in an e-mail message. "They're hungry for principled positions based on immovable morals - something that doesn't come from a veto and an op-ed."

Supporters say Mr. Romney is simply being adroit.

"He's a good politician, clearly," said Ron Kaufman, a Washington political strategist and the Republican national committeeman for Massachusetts. "There's an old song, 'Accentuate the Positive.' When you're running for election, you look at the issues that are germane for the day or for the election, and those are the issues you talk about."

On many social issues, Mr. Romney has recently appeared to stake out ground to the right of many constituents but slightly to the left of the country's most conservative Republicans.
Instead of taking the pure conservative position of opposing all embryonic stem cell research, Mr. Romney, whose state is full of leading scientists, has said he supports using embryos if they are leftovers from fertility clinics, but not if they were created solely for research.

Mr. Romney wants to reinstate capital punishment in Massachusetts, but his proposal for a "foolproof" death penalty restricts when it can be applied to the point that some conservatives say it would make executions exceedingly rare.

Even on gay marriage, which Mr. Romney has consistently opposed, his record is not universally praised by conservatives. They applaud that he invoked a 1913 law to prohibit same-sex couples residing outside Massachusetts from getting married in the state. But Mr. Romney's support of a constitutional amendment last year to ban gay marriage but also create civil unions upset some conservatives.

Last month, he endorsed another amendment that would ban gay marriage but not create civil unions, saying that he had backed the civil unions amendment because it seemed the only way to stop same-sex marriage at the time.

With "issues like stem cell and abortion and so forth," said Joseph D. Malone, a former state treasurer who supports Mr. Romney, "his position is somewhere between Ted Kennedy Massachusetts liberals on the left and George Bush on the right, with the lean toward George Bush conservativism."

Even his opinion article on abortion did not slide all the way to the right. He did not call for a blanket ban, but wrote: "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

This language differed from statements like the one in his unsuccessful 1994 Senate campaign against Senator Edward M. Kennedy (during which Mr. Kennedy said "I'm pro-choice, my opponent is multiple choice"), when Mr. Romney said he felt that abortion should be "safe and legal" in part because of the death of a relative from an illegal abortion.

In his campaign for governor in 2002, when asked in a survey from Planned Parenthood, "Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?," Mr. Romney answered yes.

In another 2002 survey, from the National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Mr. Romney wrote: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

In the past, Mr. Romney has also voiced support for emergency contraception, telling The Boston Herald in 1994, "I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking the morning-after pill."

In 2002, when asked on the Planned Parenthood questionnaire if he supported wider access to emergency contraception, he said yes.

These days Mr. Romney chooses his words carefully, using nonincendiary language and expressing respect for people who disagree.

Asked at the National Governors Association convention in Iowa in July if Republican presidential candidates must be anti-abortion, Mr. Romney said, "I'm not enough of a campaign strategist, I'm not enough of a Karl Rove, to know the head counts in the states: which are pro-choice Republican states, which are pro-life Republican states."

Chris Dixon contributed reporting from Los Angeles for this article and Adam Nagourney from Iowa.

Discuss