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

(Dayton, Ohio) A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage does not bar prosecutors from charging unmarried people under the state's domestic violence law, two state appeals courts have ruled.

The decisions this month reverse rulings from judges in Cuyahoga and Warren counties who threw out domestic violence charges against unmarried men, saying the law conflicted with the amendment passed last year.

Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin said it likely will take a decision from the state's high court to resolve the issue.

"Only the Ohio Supreme Court, of any court, has the real authority to answer the question," Entin said Thursday.

The 25-year-old domestic violence law applies to couples who live together like spouses, which some judges have argued gives their relationship a special legal status. Ohio's amendment bans legal recognition of all unmarried couples, as well as gay marriages.

The 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman's decision in March to throw out a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk of Cleveland.

Last week, the 12th Ohio District Court of Appeals in Middletown held that Warren County Common Pleas Judge Neal Bronson was wrong to dismiss a domestic violence charge against Michael Carswell of South Lebanon. Both trial courts had ruled the charges unconstitutional.
Carswell's lawyer, Thomas Eagle, told the Dayton Daily News last week that he expects to appeal.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:43 PM

by Peter Hacker, 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: December 22, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Sydney, Australia) Australian Prime Minister John Howard says he would never permit the passage of same-sex marriage or civil unions legislation.

Howard was asked by reporters about gay unions after same-sex couples began exchanging vows in Britain.

"I would be opposed to it," said the P.M. "I think marriage is for men and women. That's why we amended the Marriage Act."

Howard's Liberal government passed legislation last year defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Prime Minister told reporters that his opposition to same-sex unions is not discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"But I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others."

Asked about civil unions, Howard declared that he also "would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions."

A gay civil rights group fighting for same-sex marriage said Howard's comments "embarrassed Australia in the eyes of the international community."

"Australia is fast becoming the odd one out," said Peter Furness, the national spokesperson for Australian Marriage Equality. "John Howard's remarks just highlight that fact and this damages our image overseas."

Furness said that the issue of recognizing same-sex unions could pose problems at next year's Commonwealth Games, when "athletes and visitors from a number of other countries in same sex marriages will be abruptly refused recognition of their legal status the moment they set foot in Australia".

Last August on the first anniversary of the gay marriage ban more than a thousand gays and lesbians demonstrated in cities across Australia.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:40 PM

Written By 9 News
Last Updated: 12/22/2005 5:00:03
The District of Columbia does not allow marriage between same-sex couples, but has recognized domestic partners for the past 13 years. Quiet as it's been kept; there is a brand new bill on tap that would expand both the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners in DC.The City Council has given preliminary approval to a bill that would impose new marriage-like burdens on domestic partners in the district It would create new obligations imposing alimony and child support and in some cases make one spouse liable for the debts of another.The bill would allow full inheritance right, create an immunity from testifying against your domestic partner, would create a legal standing to sue of your partner was killed or injured and would allow legally binding pre marital agreements.The city council has given preliminary approval to the bill and is expected to give final passage next month. Sponsor Phil Mendelson says many of the rights can currently be created by a costly contract between the parties. The bill would make those contracts unnecessary.No opposition on the council so far. The preliminary passage came on a unanimous vote. You can expect a final vote on the measure late next month.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:37 PM

Posted: December 21, 2005 at 12:29 p.m.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Supporters of an initiative to amend the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage said they didn't get enough signatures to qualify the measure for the June ballot.
The supporters of the "Protect Marriage" initiative failed to gather the 598,105 signatures they needed by Tuesday's deadline, said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the campaign.
The initiative's failure leaves the issue of same-sex marriage in the hands of the courts.
Opponents of a state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman have taken their fight to a state appeals court in San Francisco.
The case could reach the state Supreme Court by late next year.
(Copyright 2005, KRON 4. All rights reserved.)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:35 PM

December 22, 2005
Windsor Journal

By SARAH LYALL
WINDSOR, England, Dec. 21 - If there were any demonstrators in the crowd, either pro- or anti-gay, they were being unusually quiet. No one was screaming religious slogans, carrying angry placards, wearing in-your-face outfits or loudly forecasting the end of civilization as we know it.

The most striking thing, in fact, about the people gathered along the streets here on Wednesday for Sir Elton John's civil partnership ceremony with his boyfriend, David Furnish, was how little they appeared to care, one way or the other, about the couple's sexuality.

"They're all doing it now, aren't they?" said 55-year-old Margaret Gray, who described herself as a fan of Sir Elton, particularly his song "Candle in the Wind."

"I think he's been open about everything, bless him, and I'm pleased for him."

Down the street, Rita Divico, 59, said of homosexuality that "it's not something that's in my nature." But each to his own, she added.

"If that's what they want to do, it's up to them," said Mrs. Divico, who was born in Italy and is a Roman Catholic. "If it makes them happy, carry on." She herself has been married for 42 years, she said, "too long."

Sir Elton, 58, and Mr. Furnish, 43, have lived together since 1994, after meeting at a mutual friend's dinner party, but they have been legally prevented from making honest men of each other. That changed on Wednesday, when Britain's new civil partnership law took effect in England, allowing gay couples to legalize their relationships.

The law was passed in 2004 and has been taking effect in different parts of Britain this week, starting in Northern Ireland on Monday. The government said that 687 gay couples had registered their intention to make their partnerships official on Wednesday, and that as many as 22,000 couples might take advantage of the new law in the next five years.

Although it stops short of calling the new arrangement marriage, unlike in the Netherlands, Canada, Spain and Belgium, the legislation gives gay couples legal rights similar to those of married people in areas like inheritance, immigration and pensions, as well as responsibilities in areas like child-rearing.

Sir Elton, long one of British show business's best-loved figures, is not known for his low-key approach to anything, and, after an early and unsuccessful marriage to a woman, he has never made a secret of his homosexuality. In concert, he wears enormous kooky sunglasses, platform shoes, glitter and, on one occasion, a chicken costume; he once admitted to spending £290,000 (about $512,000 at current rates) on flowers in an 18-month period.

He has a decidedly common touch that he solidified when he sang "Candle in the Wind" at the funeral of Diana, the Princess of Wales. But Sir Elton is also a celebrity's celebrity, offering counseling and refuge in his many homes to famous friends who are addicted to drugs or other substances, unhappy in love or, in the case of Elizabeth Hurley, eager to lose the weight they gained while pregnant. He is a darling of celebrity magazines and reportedly turned down a multimillion-pound offer for the media rights to the event.

On Wednesday, he kept it dignified, arriving for the service at the Guildhall, in the shadow of Windsor Castle, wearing a dark suit and a diamond pin. Mr. Furnish, who is Canadian and makes films, also wore a dark suit.

The Guildhall is the same place, as it happens, where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married last spring. But while the royal couple went on to have a blessing in church and a reception at the castle sponsored by Queen Elizabeth, the nonroyals skipped the church (Church of England clergy members are not allowed to perform gay partnership ceremonies, anyway) and prepared for a big party, without the queen but probably with better food, at their house in Old Windsor.

Only a select few guests attended the Guildhall ceremony. Among those present were Mr. Furnish's black-and-white spaniel, Arthur, and the photographer Sam Taylor-Wood, who later described the ceremony as "beautiful" and "very emotional." Guests said the 20-minute service ended with a kiss.

The parents of both grooms were also there. Mr. Furnish's mother, Gladys, told reporters afterward that she was "very proud." His father, Fred, said it was "one of the happiest days of my life."

Mr. Furnish and Sir Elton emerged from the Guildhall beaming, to cheers from onlookers. Although they did not kiss outside, robbing the tabloid photographers of the photograph of the day, they blew kisses at the crowd before sweeping into a black car and driving off. Sir Elton mouthed the words "I love you" in the general direction of the well-wishers.

At his monthly news conference at Downing Street, Prime Minister Tony Blair sent his congratulations.

"I wish him and David well, and all the other people exercising their rights under the civil partnerships law," Mr. Blair said. "I think it is a modern, progressive step for the country, and I am proud we did it."

Not everyone feels that way.

Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, a group that wants to put religion at the forefront of politics and whose Web site displays the phrase "the enemies of God are all having their say," told The Press Association that "ordinary people will be revolted by the sight of these couples embracing."

He continued, speaking of the new legislation, "The recognition in our law of what the Bible describes as an abomination and vile affection will bring judgment on our land from the same Almighty God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah."

Outside the Guildhall, Gloria Pugh and her husband, John, were not thinking about Sodom or Gomorrah. They just wanted to see Sir Elton, and any other celebrity who happened to be in the neighborhood.

"As long as they don't bother me, I'm not bothered," Mr. Pugh, 61, said of gay couples.

In fact, he added, Mrs. Pugh has a gay uncle who has been with his own partner for many years. Because of the new law, the family is wondering whether the couple will make it legal.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:13 AM

12/21/05

Updated: 08:04 AM EST

Associated Press WINDSOR, England (Dec. 21) - Britain's most famous gay couple - Sir Elton John and Canadian filmmaker David Furnish - tied the knot on Wednesday in a star-studded event that capped a week of civil partnership ceremonies in the United Kingdom.

Cameras flickered as hordes of paparazzi and fans huddled together in the cobbled streets around Windsor's town hall, the Guildhall, where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles wed in April. John, 58, and Furnish, 43, walked out smiling, waving and raising their thumbs after the ceremony as an attendant threw rice at the couple.

The couple are among hundreds of same-sex couples to wed in civil partnerships in England and Wales on Wednesday, the first day that such ceremonies become possible. Ceremonies were held earlier this week in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

"It's a special day for Elton. I want to be a part of it," said Andrea Lever, who traveled 200 miles from Torquay in southwest England for the event.

Three couples signed their documents moments after the register office opened at 8 a.m. in Brighton, the south coast city known as Britain's gay capital.

Suzi Uprichard, 33, of Maidenhead, was excited to take part in what she described as a historic day for same-sex couples.

"It's a long time coming really," Uprichard said. "Admittedly, it's Elton and David's day, but it's the first day that gay couples can engage in civil ceremonies in ... England. So I think it's something celebrate."

Police erected security barriers outside the sturdy building of brick and Portland stone partly designed by Christopher Wren, but expected no trouble. Relaxed officers, some on horseback, chatted with photographers, who stood four and five deep on the streets outside the Guildhall.
"It's not a major police operation - it's not a royal wedding," Windsor police spokeswoman Sue Mahoney said. "The general atmosphere seems to be jolly, very good humored."

Fans got into the spirit of the event with posters featuring the couple and Queen Elizabeth II, who has a castle in Windsor, a centuries-old seat of British royalty west of London. A nearby shop wished the couple well with handpainted sign saying "go for it."

Gay rights activists see the unions as joyous - and important in advancing efforts to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals. Peter Tatchell, spokesman for the gay and lesbian human rights group OutRage! said the wedding "would raise the profile of gay love and commitment."

"Their same-sex civil partnership ceremony will be reported all over the world including in countries where news about gay issues is normally never reported," he said. "This will give hope to millions of isolated, vulnerable, lesbian and gay people especially those living in repressive and homophobic countries."

Furnish, a Canadian-born filmmaker, and John have been together for 12 years.

The couple plans a low-key private ceremony, with only John's mother and stepfather and Furnish's parents expected to attend. The reception, by contrast, is expected to be a star-studded extravaganza costing an estimated $1.75 million.

Two giant white tents have been erected on the grounds of the pop star's Windsor mansion for the bash, which British tabloids claim will be heated adequately to warm the hundreds of guests in skimpy evening gowns.

Guests at the couple's bachelor night on Monday - a prelude to the bigger reception on Wednesday - included heavy metal rocker turned reality TV star Ozzy Osbourne and his wife Sharon, model and actress Liz Hurley and musicians Bryan Adams, Gary Barlow and Kid Rock.
The new law - passed last year despite some opposition from Parliament's unelected House of Lords - allows civil ceremonies that will give same-sex couples the same social security, tax, pension and inheritance rights as married couples.

John and Furnish acknowledged that their ceremony might have broader ramifications.
"As far as I'm concerned I've always considered myself committed to Elton and he's the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with. So in that sense I don't feel like the dynamic of our relationship is going to change," Furnish told Attitude magazine. "But from a social standpoint, I think its hugely significant. It is a major, major change. It is one of the defining issues of our times."

12/21/05 06:16 EST

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:08 AM

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

(Olympia, Washington) Same-sex couples in the state of Washington are hoping the Supreme Court has a Christmas gift for them. They have been waiting for nine months for the court to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

The state Supreme Court hands down its rulings on Thursdays. Each week hundreds of gay and lesbian couples log onto the court's web site hoping for a ruling.

Thursday will be the last opportunity before Christmas for the court to issue a decision.

Arguments challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage were made before the Washington Supreme Court last March.

The case involves eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County.

In August, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said that the Washington State Constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbian and gay people - and that those rights are violated by a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Downing's ruling went on to say that the couples must be given marriage licenses.

One month later, a court in Thurston County ruled similarly.

Equal Rights Washington, the state's largest LGBT rights group, says it expects if the suit is successful gay and lesbian couples could immediately apply for licenses.

Legal experts say the court could rule in any of three ways: It could declare DOMA unconstitutional and grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals, uphold DOMA, or ask the Legislature to resolve the issue.

A conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage is already calling for an amendment the state constitution.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:00 AM

by Michael J. Meade, 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: December 20, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin on Tuesday sent to the legislature a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and block the state from allowing civil unions.

It also would void more than 6,000 gay marriages already performed in the Commonwealth.
Galvin announced that he officially certified the proposal. He said that it met the requirements - 65,825 signatures, with no more than 16,456 from any one county. Local election clerks had already ascertained names on the measure were those of registered voters.

The House and Senate will have to approve the question in two successive sessions for it to go on the 2008 ballot.

The legislature has already rejected its own proposed amendment, one that would have banned gay marriage but allowed civil unions.

But this time the proposed amendment is a citizens initiative and requires a much lower threshold to gain approval, needing only the support of 50 members in each of the two sessions.
The signatures submitted to Galvin were collected by Vote On Marriage - an umbrella group made up of the Catholic Church and evangelical groups.

The petitions have been the center of controversy from the beginning.

Last month the legislature heard from people who said they were coerced into signing the petitions. Local newspapers in Massachusetts have also carried reports of fraud.

The committee heard from 10 voters, each of whom said signature gatherers tried to trick them into signing the anti-gay marriage petition.

In each case, the voters said they were asked to sign a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores and were then told to sign a second sheet of paper without being told it was the anti-gay marriage amendment. In some cases they said they were told the second sheet was a "back up" sheet for the wine question.

Vote On Marriage hired a private company, Arno Political Consultants - a firm with ties to Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - to collect the signatures.

More than 6,500 gay and lesbian couples have married in Massachusetts. Recent polls have suggested if the proposed amendment reaches voters it would be rejected.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:59 AM

by Fidel Ortega, 365Gay.com Miami Bureau
Posted: December 20, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Palm Beach, Florida) The Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners will vote January 10 on a proposed ordinance to recognize same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex domestic partners many of the rights accorded to married couples.

The measure received initial approval Monday.

Under the plan couples who register their relationships with the county would have the same rights as spouses to visit a partner at health care or correctional facilities.

Partners would have the same rights as spouses to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner; the same rights as surviving spouses with regard to funeral and burial decisions; the right to be notified in those situations where notification of family is mandated or permissible; and, the right to be designated and to serve as a pre-need guardian.

"Today, the County Commissioners unanimously voted to provide a handful of pro-family benefits to these couples and their children, said Palm Beach County Human Rights Council founder Rand Hoch.

"It is so important that these relationships receive this recognition, so that no patient in a hospital, nursing home or convalescent center will ever be denied the comfort of being with their loved ones.”

The ordinance would not cover any of the several thousand rights and obligations of marriage under state or federal law.

To be eligible for the county benefits, a couple would have to appear in person at the Office of the Clerk and Comptroller and produce a copy of at least one the following documents: a current mortgage, lease or deed showing both partners’ names; current drivers’ licenses, passports, tax returns, or other government issued photograph identification showing the same address for both partners.

In addition, a couple must also produce copies of at least two of the following documents: a current mortgage, lease or deed showing both names, a statement from a joint bank account, credit cards with the same account numbers for both persons, vehicle title showing common ownership, a beneficiary designation for a retirement plan or life insurance policy signed and completed to the effect that one domestic partner is the beneficiary of the other, and wills which designate the other as the primary beneficiary.

Under a reciprocity clause in the ordinance any couple legally partnered anywhere in the world would have their relationship recognized automatically while in Palm Beach County. That provision would e particularly beneficial to snowbirds who winter in the county.

In October, the County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to offer the same employee benefits to its current and retired employees with domestic partners as it offers to married employees and retirees.

The move made the county one of only a handful of municipalities in Florida to offer domestic partner benefits to its workers.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:56 AM

by Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: December 20, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(New York City) The city of New Rochelle is being sued for offering health benefits to the domestic partners of civic workers.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Federal court by four residents of the community north of New York City.

"I don't think taxpayers should be paying for two people to be living together outside of marriage," Joseph Rossini, one of the plaintiffs, told the New Rochelle Journal News.
Rossini is chairman of the New Rochelle Conservative Party.

The city passed the benefits plan in May.

"All I can say is that, having sponsored the bill, I believe the law is fair and equitable to all employees of New Rochelle," Mayor Tim Idoni told the paper.

The legality of benefits plans for same-sex couples has never been tested in court in New York state.

The four New Rochelle ratepayers are represented by attorney Raymond Belair. In his submission to the court Belair argues that that the benefits are discriminatory, violating the Constitution and several federal laws, because they are offered to people of the same sex living together only if they are homosexual and not if they are, for instance, brothers or friends.
The New Rochelle plan, however, includes opposite-sex unmarried couples. To be eligible domestic partners must register with the Westchester County Clerk affirming that they have been together at least three months.

Belair also fought same-sex partner benefits in Eastchester. In that case the local council rescinded the benefits plan before the case reached court.

Last year, New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer citing New York’s comity law said that marriages of same-sex couples performed elsewhere are completely valid in New York State and must be treated as such. The legal opinion prompted a number of municipalities to offer benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:53 AM

By Dominic Casciani
BBC News community affairs

With civil partnerships now legal, one gay couple tells the BBC what it means to be the first in the queue - one they've waited four decades to come to an end.

They've been waiting 39 years, but Roger Lockyer and Percy Steven are about to make honest men of each other.

When 21 December comes around, the London couple will be at the front of the queue at Westminster Register Office to become a legally-recognised, officially sanctioned, Parliamentary-approved Civil Partnership. Or, perhaps more simply, a happily married gay couple - in all but name.

A few short legal ticks and then, together with their witnesses, Roger and Percy will toast their little bit of legal history over lunch at a favourite little venue.

December marks a sea-change in British society with the 2004 Civil Partnership Act coming into force.

The legislation allows gay and lesbian couples to declare themselves permanently together in proceedings which, in every legal regard, accord them the rights which married people take for granted.

'Long overdue'

So when Roger, 77, and Percy, 66, quietly step into the register office and pick up the pen to sign their names, it will be not only with a sense of satisfaction but also with a feeling of "about bloody time".

"This really is quite long overdue," says Roger, a retired professor of history at Royal Holloway College. "It really has been a long time to wait for what, quite frankly, should have been recognised as our normal right. "It means that I am not going to worry anymore about things like inheritance of our home, were I to die first. We both know of people who have lost their home because of the inheritance tax bill when one partner has died."

Married couples expect part of their pension, and all of their assets, to be transferred to their spouse on death. That will now also apply to gay couples in civil partnerships.

Family rights

Another major issue is next of kin rights - something close to the heart of Roger and Percy. "Eight years ago Roger had to go into hospital for a week," says Percy. "I was along visiting and this doctor, this medical god, came through with his acolytes.

"Roger asked if I could stay and the doctor asked who I was. When Roger said I was his partner, he said, 'What? Your business partner?' and looked quite horrified and askance.

"I thought 'well f - you' and offered him my seat with a smile. It was only later that one of his interns came back and said to us that they were deeply ashamed by his behaviour."

That kind of event has increasingly become the exception. In practice, many organisations have recognised gay relationships while waiting for the law to catch up, particularly in the light of the 1998 Human Rights Act and related European Union anti-discrimination measures.

But for Roger and Percy it has been 40 years of waiting. They were introduced through a matchmaking friend who thought the young academic and Percy, a South-Africa born actor, would get on like a house on fire. They soon realised they wanted to spend their lives together.
Their professional lives have taken them around Britain and the United States where, they say, they found attitudes more liberal than at home.

Older, but militant

But it has been the official recognition they have been waiting for.

"After 40 years of being together I don't think that it needs a declaration - our love does not need proclaiming as such," says Percy. "But here is another importance in making our fellow citizens aware that there are other people with other lifestyles in the universe.

"As I have got older I have got much more militant because this is a political statement as well as an emotional statement."

Roger says: "We have suffered very little discrimination during our time together but it is important to us to know that we will now be legally kin. It used to be said that homosexuals are some kind of horrible people who cannot have any kind of meaningful relationship.

"Younger generations have a different perspective on this. Kids are much more willing to say that they are gay and that is perhaps because society, and their age group, has changed its attitudes."

Roger suggests that a crucial social change may come in how the public construe the "gay scene". Hedonistic lifestyles in post-war London were driven by the simple fact that relationships were, until the late 1960s, illegal and until now unrecognised.

While the government's 1957 Wolfenden Report recommended decriminalising homosexuality (concluding it was "not a disease") it took a decade to get through Parliament, albeit with a higher age of consent.

"Before Wolfenden, if you were a bachelor, that was that, the assumption was you would get married," he says. "But after the report, if it were said that you were a confirmed bachelor, then it was 'hey ho, we really know what you are'."

Men of his generation were subject to blackmail - particularly those involved in politics or business - while the police would send the vice squad in to raid clubs, the assumption being that anyone who attended was involved in corrupting the public morals.

That sense of "something to be ashamed of" did not end with legal reform in the 1960s. Staff at one popular gay club in London regularly warned patrons in the 1990s that the photographers outside were not taking pictures to promote the venue.

Today, as couples seek partnership, the wider public gaze may shift from night clubs to the simple and mundane things of ordinary life: couples being couples, living out their lives in society. This may prove crucial to undermining remaining prejudices.

Letting the family know

In Percy's case, he never discussed his sexuality with his father, but believes he always knew.
His mother however had to confront the issue when she visited from South Africa soon after the couple had bought a home.

"She asked 'So where are you sleeping', assuming that I had temporarily moved from my room to create a guest bedroom," recalls Percy.

" 'That's my bedroom there'. 'You're sharing with Roger while I am here?' she said. 'No that is our bedroom, mother.

"Well, there was a pause as my mother took this in. And I waited and eventually said, 'So what's it to be? A cup of tea or a Scotch?' "

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/magazine/4497416.stm

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:46 AM

Advocate.com
December 21, 2005

Gay and lesbian couples who are legally married outside the state of California cannot obtain benefits for their partners if they work for the city of San Jose, a Santa Clara County judge has ruled, The [San Jose] Mercury News reported Monday.

In 2004 the San Jose city council voted to give same-sex couples the same benefits given to straight couples. However, conservative legal groups filed a lawsuit to stop the measure.Monday's ruling is largely symbolic and has little effect in San Jose, according to the newspaper, because only Massachusetts permits same-sex marriages. California's domestic-partnership law allows city workers who register to get benefits for their partners. "It's basically moot," San Jose city attorney Rick Doyle told the News.Still, conservative groups claimed a victory. They say they have blocked the city's attempt to recognize marriage equality for gay couples, according to the newspaper.

Superior court judge Mary Jo Levinger wrote in her ruling that the city council's efforts "to recognize all marriages of city employees certified by other jurisdictions is contrary to California law and is therefore preempted. Furthermore, only marriages between a man and a woman may be recognized by the city of San Jose."

(Advocate.com)
What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:43 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 20, 2005 7:00 am ET

(New Orleans, Louisiana) A conservative Christian group had no standing to sue and try to block the City of New Orleans from including same- or opposite-sex partners in employees' family health plans, a state appellate court ruled in an opinion released Monday.The state's 4th Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, saying, "... we find that plaintiffs have not established the minimal requisite interest, and therefore lack the requisite interest sufficient to afford him a right of action."

A telephone call to attorney Mike Johnson, who represented the ADF, was not immediately returned. The Alliance is involved in fighting gay initiatives across the country.

Johnson sued the city in 2003 on behalf of a group of New Orleans taxpayers, arguing that the domestic partners ordinance violates provisions in state law that uphold traditional marriage. Civil District Court Judge Louis DiRosa dismissed the suit last May, before it got to trial, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because the law did not cost them anything in tax money.

In arguments before the 4th Circuit, Johnson acknowledged that the cost increase was minimal, but said state law allows taxpayers to sue over any government cost increase, however little.
Thomas Ainsworth Robichaux, a lawyer for the city, argued that the city had the right to change the benefits it provides to its employees, just as a private company does.

"The court held that the people who brought the suit didn't have the right to come into court and ask that the city insurance be taken away," said Brian Chase, an attorney for Lambda Legal, which defended the city's actions. "This is a great day."

Judge Patricia Rivet Murray, in dissent, said she believed the group had standing to bring the suit because the city is spending taxpayer money on the benefits.

"Providing these benefits obviously costs the city more money than it would otherwise spend, even though, as the city argues, the net effect upon the city budget is minuscule," Murray wrote. "Under the standard utilized by the court ..., I believe the plaintiffs have demonstrated a sufficient interest to afford them standing to challenge the city ordinance."

Chase said he did not know whether the Alliance Defense Fund would appeal the ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:45 AM

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

(Washington) LGBT civil rights groups are calling on the Senate to reject portions of legislation aimed at protecting America's borders but as written could have a severe impact on binational same-sex couples.

The "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act" is awaiting Senate action. It cleared the House last Friday.

Immigration policies already prohibit gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens from sponsoring their foreign national partners for immigration benefits.

Currently, a foreign national in a relationship with an American citizen is forced to live out of status and is committing a civil violation, not a criminal offense.

But the Immigration Control Act would criminalize anyone in the U.S. without documentation, including lesbians and gay men with no other way to keep their families together.

Because the bill dramatically expands the definition of "harboring," U.S. citizens living with undocumented partners could be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned, and have their homes and assets seized.

"Our nation should unify families, not tear them apart. Instead of moving in that direction, Congress has increased the barriers to allowing loving families to stay together," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"This bill threatens the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive immigrants and asylum-seekers and the American citizens who love and care for them."
The bill also would jeopardize the safety of LGBT asylum-seekers fleeing persecution.

The bill makes many people ineligible for asylum, and eliminates almost all rights to federal judicial review of viable asylum claims.

These policy changes are particularly dangerous for LGBT/H asylum-seekers who often do not know when they first arrive that HIV status, sexual orientation and gender identity persecution are grounds for asylum Solmonese said.

"This bill cloaks a virulent anti-immigrant bias in the guise of sham 'security' measures," said Rachel B. Tiven, Executive Director of Immigration Equality, the only national LGBT immigrant rights organization.

"It will not make America safer," she added.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) , the lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, legislation that would keep lesbian and gay families together, also has sent up warning signals about the Immigration Control Act.

"This latest anti-immigrant legislation poses an especially grave threat to LGBT immigrants. Whereas heterosexuals in binational relationships will be able to shelter their foreign partners by sponsoring them for legal status, LGBT partners will be powerless to stop the government from destroying their committed relationships. This is fundamentally cruel and unjust."

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:43 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 19, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Little Rock, Arkansas) Lawyers for four couples are asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that said barring gays from being foster parents is unconstitutional.
The trial court had found that living with gay or lesbian parents poses no harm to children.
The ban on gay fostering was imposed by the state Child Welfare Agency Review Board in March 1999. The board said it was an effort to protect children from disease, violence, sexual abuse, neglect and instability.

It not only blocks gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents but also prevents anyone who may have someone who is gay living with them from fostering.

The suit was launched shortly after the ban was introduced in 1999 by the ACLU on behalf of four prospective foster parents. Among them is William Wagner who has been married for 31 years and has a 27-year-old daughter and a 23-year-old son. Although Wagner is a married heterosexual, he is disqualified from serving as a foster parent because his gay son sometimes lives at home.

At trial, the state's chief witness was Dr. George A. Rekers, a founder of the conservative Family Research Council.

Rekers has a history of anti-gay views, relying on the research of Paul Cameron, whose work has been discredited by psychiatric professional groups. Rekers also practices so-called "conversion therapy" which claims to "cure" gay people.

Last December Circuit Court Judge Timothy Fox ruled that the regulation is unconstitutional and said the state Child Welfare Agency Review board had overstepped its authority by trying to regulate "public morality.''

The state appealed the ruling. Last month in a brief to the state Supreme Court the attorney general argued that that Fox erred in his ruling. The brief said that the board was not trying to regulate morality but was exercising its due diligence in protecting the "health and welfare of the children in the State’s foster care system".

"This anti-gay foster parenting ban goes against the recommendation of every major children's health and welfare organization in the country," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "These experts understand all too well how this policy hurts the many children in Arkansas in need of safe, stable homes."

In addition to today's brief from the ACLU, several other groups have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, including the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers and its Arkansas chapter, and the American Psychological Association.

"One thing that the proponents of this policy can't seem to explain is, 'How do they expect the state to find homes for the children in Arkansas who need foster care when you diminish the already small pool of potential parents?'" said Rob Woronoff, a program manager with the Child Welfare League of America.

"Policymakers should heed the advice of the child welfare professionals who know that the best way to meet the needs of foster children is to assess all prospective parents on a case-by-case basis."

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:40 AM

December 19, 2005 at 12:51:53 PST

By SHAWN POGATCHNIKASSOCIATED PRESS
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (AP) -
Two lesbians become the first gay couple in the United Kingdom to win legal recognition under a civil partnership Monday, a ceremony that attracted scorn from evangelical Christian protesters but praise from gay rights activists.

Grainne Close, a social worker from Northern Ireland, and Shannon Sickels, a playwright from New York, were the first of several hundred gay couples exchanging vows nationwide this week - including Elton John and his longtime partner.

"We are delighted. Here's to many more," Sickels said after she and Close became the first public celebrants of a legally binding gay partnership at Belfast City Hall.

Northern Ireland, which in 1982 was the last region in the United Kingdom to legalize homosexuality, is now the first to grant gay couples the same legal protections as married heterosexuals. Scotland was to follow on Tuesday, and England and Wales on Wednesday.
The measure is already in force in many other European countries. In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, but 11 states voted in November to ban gay marriage.

After a 30-minute ceremony featuring such songs as Dolly Parton's "Touch Your Woman," Sickels and Close posed for photographers displaying matching commitment rings of diamond and platinum, then dashed off for reception. Scores of family, friends and gay rights activists tossed flowers and rainbow-colored ribbons in their path.

"This is about making a choice to have our civil rights acknowledged and respected and protected as any human being," said Sickels, 27, who met her 32-year-old partner in New York four years ago.

But in keeping with the exceptional conservatism of Northern Ireland society, their landmark festivities also drew a few dozen Protestant evangelicals who sang Gospel hymns and waved "Sodomy is sin" placards.

Gay rights activists countered with their own bullhorn-assisted chants of support. A few wearing Hitler-style mustaches shadowed the evangelical crowd waving satirical placards that read, "Earth is flat" and "Bring back slavery."

Some lesbian couples who arrived as guests suffered verbal harassment from the protesters, who called them "abominations" and warned of their impending damnation.

"The fact is that God instituted human marriage in the Garden of Eden, and it was one man with one woman. God has not changed that," said the Rev. Ian Brown of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.

Brown, a protest leader, said most people in Northern Ireland opposed what he called "sodomite propaganda" and homosexuals' "perverse lifestyle."

Such views are more widely held in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Here, Roman Catholics and Protestants sometimes overcome their political hostility to protest jointly on traditional family issues.

Northern Ireland's police force in May reported a surge in hate crimes against gays over the past two years. As Close and Sickels arrived at Belfast City Hall, an informal poll on Radio Ulster in Belfast registered about 70 percent opposition to civil partnerships.

But the protesters were heading off for lunch and Christmas shopping by the time the second civil partnership couple, Christopher Flanagan and Henry Kane of Belfast, arrived in matching white morning suits - and a pink stretch limousine.

Flanagan said the new law would protect them, ensuring that if one died, the other would inherit their property rather than relatives hostile to their relationship. "It's given us legal status behind our relationship, if anything goes wrong," he said.

The third couple, two women, did not want their names and personal information published.
Although Monday marked the first day for public civil partnership ceremonies, English judges have granted several gay couples this legal protection citing emergency circumstances.
One beneficiary was Matthew Roche, 46, who died of lung cancer the day after he and his partner, Christopher Cramp, were legally bound together Dec. 5 in Brighton, England.

On Wednesday, the General Register Office in England says 687 same-sex unions will gain legal recognition. By far the most intensely watched ceremony will be for Elton John and his partner of 12 years, Canadian filmmaker David Furnish. They plan to confirm their civil partnership at the Guildhall in the royal London suburb of Windsor, where Prince Charles wed Camilla Parker Bowles in April.

The ceremonies come more than a year after the British Parliament approved the law in November 2004. Northern Ireland was first because it has a shorter registration deadline in matrimonial law than do other regions of the United Kingdom.

Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships. Several other European Union members have followed suit: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:04 PM

By Quad-City Times

The Mason City Globe-Gazette

What is it about the idea of a same-sex couple that causes such concern among some people? What is it about the idea of a state or the nation affording the same marriage rights and responsibilities to a gay couple as are given to the union of a man and woman, that makes some people go absolutely crazy?

Six same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court last week, claiming that Iowa’s denial of a marriage license to them violates their constitutional rights. The action was among similar suits filed in states around the country.

Not unexpectedly, some Iowa lawmakers practically fell over each other rushing to proclaim that they would work to pass a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as legal only between a man and a woman. Iowa law already includes such a definition.

Iowa Senate Co-President Jeff Lamberti, R-Ankeny, said the legal challenge to Iowa’s marriage laws brings a “new urgency” for lawmakers to approve a constitutional amendment. “We have a direct attack on Iowa law,” Lamberti said.

Frankly, we think there are plenty more important issues for our state senators and representatives to concern themselves with when the new session begins in January.

Coming up with the money to adequately fund schools, universities and our community colleges; teacher pay; economic development; clean water; livestock issues; public health — all these rank a whole lot higher on our list of priorities than worrying about whether two people who love each other should or shouldn’t be allowed to marry depending on their sexual orientation.

Again, what is it about gay marriage that is so threatening?

How would allowing same-sex couples to get married damage in any way heterosexual marriages? Is anyone seriously afraid that some guy will see a married gay couple and think, “Hey, that looks pretty good. I think I’ll leave my wife and give homosexuality a try?” The only people who think this way are those who think homosexuality is a choice.

If you’re a straight person who thinks gay folks choose to be gay, ask yourself, could you choose to be sexually attracted to people of your own gender? If you answer no, why do you think gays can make a choice?

How can anyone logically argue that letting people get married threatens marriage?
In fact, a pretty good argument could be made that allowing gay marriages would strengthen marriage, since it would allow partners who have already shown years of devotion to one another to take part. Goodness knows that heterosexuals, where a third to half of all marriages end in divorce, depending on whose figures you believe, are not doing that great a job of perpetuating the institution.

Many arguments against gay marriage will come down to religious beliefs, yet our political system was designed specifically to prevent individual religious beliefs from being imposed upon others. People who think homosexuality is sinful should no more be able to pass laws restricting civil rights than Catholics should be able to pass laws requiring everyone confess their sins to a priest or Jews should be able to outlaw eating pork.

We don’t think Iowa should have a law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but it does. Whether a legal challenge of that law will be successful or not is anyone’s guess.
The Legislature shouldn’t waste its time and effort worrying about a situation that may not even occur, and that wouldn’t hurt anything if it did.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:02 PM

by Malcolm Thornberry,
365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: December 19, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Athens) Greek Justice Minister Anastassis Papaligouras dashed all hopes on the weekend that the government would bring in legislation recognizing same-sex couples.

Papaligouras said that the government is looking at giving more rights to unmarried heterosexual couples but any bill on the issue would not include gay and lesbian partners.
"Any legislative initiative cannot exceed the tolerance and the sentiment of what is generally acceptable in any society,” Papaligouras said, responding to a question from the Synaspismos Left Coalition leader Alekos Alavanos.

Alavanos supports granting rights to same-sex couples and called on the Justice Minister to form a parliamentary committee to examine the possibility of giving greater recognition to same-sex couples.

“Every change has to mature in society before it can be decreed as law," Papaligouras replied.
In July Alvanos committed his left of center party to supporting gay couples in a meeting with LGBT activists in Athens. The meeting following the release of a report last winter by a quasi Government agency urging the Greek government to create a civil unions registry.
But the powerful Greek Orthodox Church opposes any move that it believes could lead to same-sex marriage.

"Gay people warp human nature with unspeakable, unnatural acts," Bishop Anthimos of Thessaloniki said following Alvanos' meeting with gay leaders.

Among other European Union nations same-sex marriage is legal in The Netherlands, Spain and Belgium. Most others have varying forms of civil unions. This week the first civil partnerships will be registered in the UK. The only country to ban any recognition of gay couples in its constitution is Latvia.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:40 AM

San Francisco Chronicle
Jane Ganahl
Sunday, December 18, 2005

I admit that these days I'm feeling a little cynical about love and marriage. Although I'm darn near perfectly content as an unmarried woman with too much to do, the holidays make it tough to ignore a recent spate of datelessness. Thank God my family has stopped asking whether I'm seeing anyone.

But it's not just my own personal love life -- or lack thereof -- that's got me down.

Another couple I know that I always thought were happy as clams are busting up in an ugly fashion, adding another nano-point to the 50 percent divorce rate. And while we still condone such heterosexual behavior as drive-through Church of Elvis weddings, committed gay and lesbian couples still can't marry legally. Worse, there are at least one, and maybe two, anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments brewing in California's darker political alleys.

(Although, as one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons asked, why would gay and lesbian couples actually want to engage in such a questionable activity? "Gays and lesbians getting married," huffs a man in his armchair, frowning as he reads the paper. "Haven't they suffered enough?")
With the groundswell of sentiment that it's OK not to be married (I swear we shall invert this paradigm before I check out), and the many joys to be had in living alone, why even bother to get married anymore? Especially once you've reached "that certain age" where independence feels like such a luxury?

I was reminded of a few reasons just recently when two close friends surprised the world by suddenly deciding to marry -- after six years of togetherness. They had lived together, bought property together, adopted numerous pets together (she's an animal welfare worker), decided not to have kids together (both being in their mid-40s), raged against the establishment together and generally seemed a perfect match for each other. So why go and mess it up by getting married?

"I'm not really sure. That's a good question," laughed Allison Hatcher, clomping up the rotunda stairs at San Francisco's glorious City Hall in her motorcycle boots. The former architect and current pet-aholic looked fetching in a vintage wedding dress that she bought for $6 at an East Bay hospice thrift store and then paid someone to chop the midriff out of, leaving her with a full ballerina tutu-type skirt, 6 inches of annoyingly fit bare belly and a demure short-sleeved fitted top. She carried a bunch of seasonal paperwhite blossoms and sported a short veil, held in place in her streaked hair with clips.

I asked Johnny Steele, a sometime radio personality and stand-up comedian, the same question.
"Why now?" he asked, looking swanky-noir in a suit with a white flower boutonniere and fedora. I expected the question to make the former major ladies' man flinch. But instead, he merely shrugged. "The relationship has become so completely easy and natural. And when it is, it's not such an issue."

"It" being marriage -- something Johnny had spent his entire life avoiding. So I had to ask how "it" happened. Was there a down-on-one-knee sort of scene? He laughed. Not at all. "It was more like, 'Maybe we should just do it,' " he says.

"I wanted to get married at the top of Alpine Meadows," added the avid sportsman, apparently seriously. "But Allison refused to spend the first moments of her marriage bombing down some dangerous mountain."

Instead, they were to fly off in an hour to honeymoon in Italy.

And what about the f-word -- as in faithful -- something Johnny has told me, over the years, that he's had trouble with in relationships? "Hell, these days I'm like the cat in the window who was long ago neutered," he chuckled. "I want to go out, but I don't remember why."

Pressed further on reasons for her agreeing to marry after staunchly saying for years they never would, Allison presented a practical angle. "I really struggled with the idea. I object to the fact that the institution is exclusionary from gays, and I don't like taking advantage of rights that others don't have. But if -- God forbid -- Johnny got hit by a taxi, I could lose everything."
She paused. "I already felt married in my heart, but it can be scary to not have it legalized."
Johnny needled her a bit about their courtship. "She laid a total trap for me," he said. "She told me, 'I don't want no husband and I don't even want a boyfriend -- I just want sex.' Who wouldn't go for that?"

Allison rolled her eyes. "And I meant it -- at the time. I'd already been married and didn't think I ever wanted to do it again."

At the same time, she added, "I knew right away that he was it for me. But I also knew he was a confirmed bachelor, so I didn't want to push too hard -- I wanted to play it casual. That's why I slept with him on the first date. So much for 'The Rules,' eh?"

They both laughed heartily.

And then it was time for the ceremony, performed by their friend Mike Farrah of the mayor's office. Their kiss was long and surprisingly sweet -- a private moment in a very public place.
Then it was time to take the taxi to the airport for their honeymoon.

"Why get married?" Allison mused again, packing up her stuff. "Hell, I just love the guy. And he loves me."

At the end of the day, I guess that's really the only reason that counts.

E-mail Jane Ganahl at jganahl@sfchronicle.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:34 AM

BBC News
12/19/05

The first set of civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples in the UK are being held in Northern Ireland.

Two women, Shannon Sickles and Grainne Close, exchanged vows at Belfast City Hall. Another lesbian couple and a gay couple will also exchange vows there.

The new Civil Partnership Act provides same-sex couples with similar legal rights to married couples.

The first ceremonies in Scotland will take place on Tuesday, and in England and Wales on Wednesday.

This is for all the people who went before us and this is for protection Shannon Sickles
Ms Sickles and Ms Close's ceremony took place at 1000 GMT at City Hall, which already has 20 provisional bookings for the services.

As they left City Hall, Ms Sickles said she was "delighted" and hoped that there would be "many more" civil partnership ceremonies.

The couple were cheered and applauded by supporters as they left the ceremony in a ribboned Hackney cab.

Speaking before the ceremony, Ms Close said they were "in a very privileged position".

"For us, this is about making a choice to have our civil rights acknowledged, and respected and protected as any human being," she said.

"We could not be here without the hard work of many queer activists and individuals from the queer community and we feel very privileged and blessed to be here doing this."

"This is for all the people who went before us and this is for protection," her partner Ms Sickles added.

About 40 people staged a protest outside City Hall.

The Reverend David McIlveen, of the Free Presbyterian Church - among the protesters - said he was "very much opposed" to the "marriage in all but name" of gay couples.

The Bible described marriage as "a relationship between male and female for the bringing up of children", he told BBC News.

"It is revealed as being an honourable relationship whereas the Bible speaks of same sex relationships as being an abomination. You cannot reconcile the two."

But Maria Quirey from Northern Ireland's Lesbian Advocacy Service said the ceremonies would be welcomed by many.

"I would remind people that we're talking about a minority, but quite a substantial minority and the British government have given the official figure now as 6% of the population," she said.
"So in the north of Ireland, we're talking about 100,000 people - men and women."

At least 1,200 ceremonies are confirmed as being scheduled across the UK already, according to figures from councils compiled by the BBC News website.

Hundreds of couples across the UK are expected to go ahead quickly, with Brighton conducting 198 ceremonies before the end of the year. Overall, the city has taken 510 bookings for the coming months, thought to be the highest in the country.

Other cities which have seen strong interest include London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Two weeks ago a terminally ill man from Brighton received special permission to go ahead with a ceremony before the normal 15-day waiting period after registration.

Matthew Roche, who had lung cancer, and Christopher Cramp held their ceremony hours after the Civil Partnership Act became law on 5 December. Mr Roche died the next day.

Campaigners say the law ends inequalities for same-sex couples.

Since it came into force, couples have been able to legally register an intention to form a civil partnership with local councils.

Legal rights

It means same-sex couples can have their relationships recognised in law for the first time.
It also provides registered gay and lesbian couples with a number of legal rights and entitlements already held by heterosexual couples in civil marriages.

But unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.

Last month, Lisburn City Council in Northern Ireland overturned its policy regarding gay and lesbian unions.

The council had banned the use of its wedding room for same-sex civil partnership registrations, prompting gay activists to threaten legal action.

After consulting lawyers, a council committee decided the ban should be lifted.

Story from BBC NEWS:

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:31 AM

Steven Swinford and Laura St Quinton
Timesonline.co.uk12/17/05

WHEN Sir Elton John ties the pink knot on Wednesday he will set the tone for the new era of same-sex unions. Figures gathered from register offices around the country suggest that most of the couples taking advantage of the civil partnership law are male with at least one of the pair being over 50.

They want to ensure that their long-term partners benefit from the new law, which gives them pension and inheritance rights equal to those of married couples.

Elton John, 58, says such rights are one of the main reasons he and David Furnish, 43, are undergoing the ceremony. “We’ve been together for 12 years and we’re able to do it, so why not,” he said last month. “It gives us protection. If one of us dies, it protects the other person.”
Under the new law, a partner can inherit all their property tax-free. They also keep the same proportion of the other’s pension income as if they had been widowed.

Figures gathered last week from Brighton and Hove, Westminster, Islington, and Kensington and Chelsea, the councils conducting the largest number of civil partnership ceremonies, show that more than 54% of all the 381 planned unions involve men over 50.

The rest are largely between younger men: 52 couples are female.

A broader study of 12 London boroughs, towns and cities found that 32% of people planning civil partnerships were women.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the homosexual rights group, said: “There is a backlog of people who have been in long-term stable relationships who want to benefit from a civil partnership.

“When you have been together 30, 40 or even 50 years you are reasonably certain about tying the knot, unlike people like Britney Spears who got married then had the marriage annulled just days later.”

Among those taking part in the ceremonies will be Angela Mason, director of the government’s women and equality unit, who will register with Elizabeth Wilson, her girlfriend of 30 years.
Mason, 61, believes years of discrimination against lesbians still deter large numbers from making their relationships public. She said: “Lesbians have traditionally been doubly oppressed, first as women and secondly for their sexuality.

“Things are improving today but there is still a hangover from the earlier period of sexual oppression and I think many simply haven’t come out. Perhaps it will change in years to come.”
Most attention will be focused on Elton John’s nuptials. The registration ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, where the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were married in April, will be a modest event for family only.

The £1m reception in a marquee at John’s nearby mansion, by contrast, will be a flamboyant affair. Caseloads of vintage pink champagne have been ordered, while the 700 guests include celebrities such as Elizabeth Hurley, Victoria Beckham, Lulu, Sharon Osbourne and Donatella Versace.

John will not be expecting any gifts, but he has asked for donations to the Elton John Aids Foundation.

The honeymoon remains a closely guarded secret, with Furnish reportedly determined to keep the new year trip as a surprise for his partner.

The couple will not be the first to tie the knot. That distinction will go to civil partners in Northern Ireland, where the first ceremonies will take place tomorrow, one day before those in Scotland and two days before England and Wales.

A total of 687 couples are scheduled to enter into civil partnerships on Wednesday.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:44 AM

by Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
Posted: December 17, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Vancouver, British Columbia) The divisive issue of same-sex marriage triggered the most emotion-charged confrontation of the second debate by the leaders of Canada's four main political parties Friday night, with accusations of hidden agendas and hypocrisy.Prime Minister Paul Martin moved to exploit the chink in Stephen Harper's political armor, suggesting the Conservative leader has a hidden agenda.

"Mr. Harper, let me tell you, it is the responsibility of the prime minister to defend the Charter of Rights.

"If you can't defend the Charter of Rights, you've got to ask why you want to be prime minister. I will defend the Charter of Rights and I will not bring forth new legislation."

Harper said during Thursday's French-language debate that he would not use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to overrule the courts and ban same-sex marriage. But he says he will allow a free vote in the House of Commons on a ban.

Martin pounced on that: "Mr. Harper has two incompatible positions. His position is not sustainable, and integrity demands that he tell Canadians in fact what his true policies and agenda are."

Harper accused Martin of hypocrisy.

"Why are there dozens of Liberal candidates running in this election that support the Conservative position on this issue?"

All leaders except Harper support leaving the gay marriage question alone now.

Harper's promise not to use the notwithstanding clause was an attempt to woo moderate voters, particularly in Ontario, where the Conservatives must win more seats to have any hope of forming a government.

The debate format, new this year, doesn't allow for direct confrontation between the candidates. But the leaders were far more adversarial in the English debate compared with the French-language encounter on Thursday.

While the opposition leaders pounded away at Martin, the prime minister repeatedly went after Harper, clearly seeing the Tory leader as his main adversary.

Under the new format, the four party leaders each get a one-minute opening statement and then answer videotaped questions from Canadians.

In his opening statement, Martin trumpeted the country's good economic record and his tax cuts, new cash for health care and child care. He also said the Liberals are the best party to keep Canada united.

Harper pledged to clean up government, crack down on crime, reduce medical wait times and give parents a choice on child care.

"After 12 years of scandal and inaction, only a new government can turn the page and address the real priorities that you have - you, the ordinary people who work hard, pay your taxes and play by the rules.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton also promised to clean up Liberal corruption, as well as improve health care, provide better education and training for young people and bring in a long-term care plan.

"It's a different way of doing politics - a real change," he said.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe focused squarely on the sponsorship scandal, saying the Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern.

The opposition leaders jumped on a question about whether it bothers them that there's a perception - in the wake of the sponsorship scandal - that all politicians are crooks. They used it to pound the Liberals.

"This scandal is without parallel at the federal level in Canadian history," Harper said. "I do not believe we can let that go unpunished. The Liberal party must be held politically accountable for it."

Martin defended his efforts to clean up after the scandal.

"I grew up in a political family. I am very proud of my father. . . . And to think politicians are given the reputations they have today bothers me very much and that's why I put Judge (John) Gomery in place and created the commission (into the sponsorship scandal).

"I wanted the answers, and I wanted Canadians to know that, in fact, openness and transparency and honesty is what pays off."

Asked about the recent comments by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins that Ottawa should tone down its rhetoric about the U.S., Martin said he will always speak up for Canada.

"When we have a disagreement, like on climate change, like on softwood, we should not be afraid to tell them," he said.

Harper accused Martin of engaging in a "phony and reckless wars of words that does not help this economy or Canadians."

"It's important for a prime minister to keep relations as good as we can while standing up for our real interests," Harper said.

The only apparent new promise to come out of the debate was a pledge by Harper to set up a national agency to evaluate the professional credentials of immigrants in order to ease Canada's shortage of skilled labor.

The Conservative leader let slip a few details about the measure when the candidates were asked how they would help skilled immigrants ply their trades in Canada.

"We're going to set up, as our first priority in the immigration field, a Canadian agency for the assessment and recognition of credentials," Harper said.

"We're going to provide free assessment to immigrants who want to come to this country on how they can best use or acquire Canadian credentials, and also make sure the private sector is more aware of those credentials."

Officials in the Conservative camp confirmed that such a promise is in the offing but would not offer any more information, saying Harper would release more details in the new year.

Harper blamed the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin for failing to address a growing shortage of doctors, engineers and other professionals in Canada by making it easier for skilled immigrants to set up shop once they arrive.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:08 AM

by Peter Moore, 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: December 16, 2005 11:00 am ET

(London) Elton John and his longtime partner David Furnish are pleading with the press to let them exchange vows next week in peace but there is little sign the dogged British media is going to let that happen.

The event already has been dubbed by the tabloids "Britain's gay royal wedding".

Unlike a number of stars who have sold the exclusive photo rights to single publications for big dollars John and Furnish have rebuffed offers, saying they want to keep it simple and private.
The result is an expected media frenzy when the couple enter the Guildhall in Windsor on December 21 - the first day that civil partnerships can be formalized in England.

Only the couple's family and a handful of friends have been invited to watch the ceremony at the historic building, most recently used by Prince Charles to marry his longtime mistress Camilla Parker Bowles.

But, despite a private ceremony, police are bracing for an onslaught of fans, paparazzi and reporters.

The British tabloids are all planning major splashy coverage of the event, several are offering tens of thousands of dollars for clandestine photos of the ceremony or the reception to follow at Elton's nearby estate.

Hotel rooms in Windsor are solidly booked by the foreign press, and police are expecting the biggest crowd control problem since the Charles-Camilla wedding.

Barricades will be set up around the Guildhall, and dozens of police officers will be on duty to keep order.

Already dubbed "Operation Elton" by police, security will cost nearly $20,000, and Windsor this week warned John and Furnish that the couple will be billed for the total cost.

Among the invited guests are George Michael and his partner Kenny Goss. Michael announced his engagement to Goss last month.

Despite the media fever over the John-Furnish ceremony, theirs is not the first big celebrity same-sex tying of the proverbial knot.

Rosie and Kelli O'Donnell were married last year in San Francisco. Their marriage and those of thousands of other same-sex couples were later invalidated by the California Supreme Court. The issue of gay marriage is currently being waged in the courts.

While John and Furnish chose Windsor for their civil partnership ceremony hundreds of other gay and lesbian couples will be united in cities and towns across the UK. The General Register Office said Friday that across England and Wales 687 same-sex couples plan to form Civil Partnerships on December 21. The number in Scotland and Northern Ireland has not been revealed.

Called "marriage lite" civil partnerships give same-sex couples an opportunity to register their relationships and receive most of the same benefits accorded married couples including pension, immigration, and property rights.

The law went into effect on December 5, allowing same-sex couples to give formal notice of their intent to register their partnership. This is followed by a waiting period. The first gay and lesbian couples will be able to tie the knot on December 19 in Northern Ireland, the 20th in Scotland and on December 21 in England.

Most of the European Union states already have varying forms civil unions. Only The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain in the EU permit same-sex marriage. Elsewhere, Canada and the US state of Massachusetts allow gay marriage. Last week the highest court in South Africa gave the government one year to pass a marriage equality law.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:04 AM

Des Moines Register
They deserve equality under the law.
By
REGISTER EDITORIAL BOARD

December 16, 2005
Six Iowa couples have filed a Polk County lawsuit fighting an Iowa requirement that marriage be "between a male and female." The same-sex couples all sought marriage licenses from the Polk County Recorder. All were denied.So they're going to fight in court for the right to make a legal commitment to each other, a right granted to heterosexual couples — and a right they deserve to have.And that's exactly what they should do in the United States of America, where we champion freedom and equality.

This country has a history of expanding and recognizing the rights of people who could not previously exercise them.Women were told they couldn't vote because it undermined family values. They didn't stop desiring or fighting for that right. They won.African-Americans couldn't drink from the same water fountains or go to the same schools as whites. They didn't stop desiring or fighting for their rights. They won.

The desire for gay couples to form a legal union is no different. Those seeking to secure equality won't just quietly disappear.Unfortunately, even in the 21st century, it's quite a fight.

Some Iowa lawmakers have tried to add a ban to the Iowa Constitution to explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage. Upon news of this recent lawsuit, Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said it was "an attempt to circumvent the will of the people."But the "will of the people" isn't so clear.

A 2003 Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found nearly half the respondents favored granting gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Only 38 percent were opposed. People favor equality. Yet only one-fourth of those polled favored allowing same-sex couples to be married.That's likely because the word marriage conjures images of rings, vows and wedding cakes. Marriage is a social and religious construct. As part of those traditions, people promise to love, honor and cherish each other.

Then there's the law. The law doesn't require people to procreate or wear wedding rings. The law grants couples tax benefits, rights to inheritance and the ability to make burial and medical decisions, among other benefits.Those legal rights should be granted to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.Eventually, they likely will be. That's what history tells us.

The desire for people to enter legally recognized unions will only gain momentum, as have the other civil-rights struggles in this country's history. These six couples are simply part of another struggle. Treating them equally would keep faith with inherent principles that make this country great.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:57 AM

LOUISE GRAY
www.scotsman.com

IT IS set to be a dream wedding with the exchanging of rings, lifelong vows and a lavish champagne reception. But there will be no white dress when John Maguire and Laurence Scott-Mackay walk down the aisle, just a morning suit and a kilt.

The couple are due to be the first people in mainland Britain to sign up for a new civil partnership, which allows same-sex couples to form a legal bond.

Just days before the big event, Mr Maguire, 36, said he was thrilled to be making history. "This is what you have dreamed about all your life," he said. "Everyone grows up wanting to be married, then you realise you cannot because you are gay. Now you can."

On Tuesday, the pair will be the first same-sex couple to formalise their relationship at the register office in India Buildings on Victoria Street, Edinburgh.

Almost 98 couples have applied for civil partnerships in the city, 58 male couples and 40 female, making it the "gay wedding capital" of Scotland. So far, in Glasgow 33 couples have applied to be registered, in Aberdeen three, in Dumfries and Galloway seven, in Dundee three and in Inverness one.

Over the next few years, thousands of same-sex couples are expected to register in Scotland. In the UK as a whole, the Department of Trade and Industry expects up to 42,500 civil partnerships by 2050.

The first "gay wedding" in the UK is expected to be that of a lesbian couple in Northern Ireland on 19 December, followed by Scotland on 20 December, and England and Wales on 21 December.

Mr Maguire said it was an honour to be one of the first couples after so many years of campaigning by gay-rights activists.
"We have an incredible burden to give thought to the people who made this come about," he said. "It is about the people who fought for human rights in the past and did not live to see it come about. We have to pay them tribute."

Civil partnership gives same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities with regard to property, tax, employment, inheritance, and housing, as married couples have always had.
Mr Maguire said that next-of-kin rights to visit his partner in hospital, pension rights to protect his partner in the event of death and adoption rights to allow them to care for children were "fundamental" to their decision.

"It is the government saying you are worth the same as everyone else; your life in your relationship is just as important to the state as anyone else's."

Mr Maguire and Mr Mackay-Scott, 38, who have been together for 14 years. Both work for Axios, a computer software company in Washington DC, in the United States, where they live. But it was important for them to return to Scotland to register their partnership.

"This is the first time in history the Scottish people have said it is OK to be gay and your relationships are absolutely valid and have to be nurtured and protected like anything else," he said.

Civil partnership allows same-sex couples to sign an official document in front of the registrar and two witnesses. But the act does not use the term "gay marriage" and there is no public declaration, as in a heterosexual civil ceremony.

However, in all other respects Mr Maguire and his partner will be having a "dream wedding". The day will begin at 9:30am with a half-hour ceremony watched by close friends and family at India Buildings with the exchange of vows, readings and music.

The couple then plan a wedding breakfast at Edinburgh Castle and a blessing at St Margaret's Chapel by the former bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway. They will spend Christmas in the capital before jetting to Las Vegas for a Valentine honeymoon.

Mr Scott-Mackay said: "It is quite amazing for me. I cannot quite believe it is happening and it is possible."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:55 AM

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

(Prague) A bill to create a domestic partner registry for gay and lesbian couples passed the lower house of the Czech Republic on Friday.

The legislation would give same-sex couples many of the same rights as marriage, including inheritance and the ability to make health care decisions for ailing partners.

It does not, however, permit same-sex couples to adopt children.

Eighty-six of the 147 deputies present voted in favor of the draft, 54 were against and seven abstained from the vote.

Most of the deputies for the Social Democrats and Communists voted in favor of the draft, while Christian Democrats and deputies of the center-right Civic Democratic Party opposed it.

Parliament turned down similar proposals five times in the past. It was rejected by a majority of just one vote in the last vote on the issue in February.The draft still needs approval by the Senate and the president to become valid.

If enacted, the legislation would allow couples who register their partnership with authorities to have rights to inheritance and health care that are similar to those granted now to heterosexual married couples.

"Our ideas (about same-sex partnership) are much wider than the draft, but this is an acceptable compromise," said Jiri Hromada a leading Czech gay activist.

Meanwhile, in Vienna on Friday, Austria's justice minister announced that he is considering legislation to grant limited recognition of same-sex couples.

Justice Minister Karin Gastinger, a member of the center-right Alliance for the Future of Austria, told the Austria Press Agency in an interview that gay and lesbian couples would be able to sign a registry and get rights to partners' estates and medical care.

Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel's conservative Austrian People's Party is in a coalition with the Alliance. It is unclear with Schuessel supports the move.

Next week the first same-sex couples in the United Kingdom will begin exchanging vows under Britain's new civil partnership law.

Thursday, Latvia became the first European country to amend its constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:16 AM

by Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
Posted: December 16, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Vancouver, British Columbia) Conservative leader Stephen Harper tried to shed his reputation for intolerance by insisting Thursday night he would love his children even if they were gay, adding - for the first time - that he wouldn't use the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.
"It's a duty of parents to always love their children. I love my children and I'm going to love my children all my life," the Harper said in what was the emotional highlight of the four party leaders' first debate of the election campaign.

Harper said he would not use the Constitution's controversial notwithstanding clause to eradicate the right to same-sex marriage. He went on to say the issue would be settled by a free vote in Parliament if he becomes prime minister. But he refused to be pinned down on how he could void the law when the courts have ruled it unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marrying.

Harper needs to win over moderate voters, particularly in Ontario, if the Conservatives are to have any hope of forming a government. His opposition to same-sex marriage has been cited by pollsters as a position that has driven moderate voters away from the Tories.

The encounter was civilized but did not allow for much in the way of direct debate between the contenders for the Jan. 23 election.

The leaders responded to videotaped questions from voters across the country. None of the politicians knew in advance what they would be asked.

Rather than stymie the flow of the debate, the questions seemed to enhance the exchanges. Each of the four leaders also seemed at ease in French, the language of Thursday's debate. Friday's will be in English.

Martin, who repeatedly portrays Harper as a right-wing ideologue, cast himself as a man who defends all Canadians.

"The role of the prime minister of Canada is to protect minorities, and I assure you that I will protect minorities," Martin told the national audience.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, eager not to be outflanked by the Liberals on the issue, said his party would do everything it could to protect the rights of gays and lesbians.
"For a long time, (gays and lesbians) have worked towards this goal to have equality," Layton said. "And I'm very proud that I had the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons and to vote in support for equal rights for everyone."

The early section of the debate was dominated by the sponsorship scandal.

It took just seconds for sponsorship to become a cudgel in the hands of the prime minister's political rivals as they took turns pounding Martin on the topic.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, in his element in French, led the charge against Martin's scandal-plagued Liberal government, which he described as having "lost the moral authority" to govern.

"The sponsorship scandal is an incontestable issue," Duceppe said during a two-hour question-answer session that was largely civil, focused on policy and devoid of the kind of angry back-forth exchanges that have defined past debates.

"Justice (John) Gomery ruled that the Liberal party brought itself into dishonour and that a system of bribes was in place."

Martin shot back that Duceppe and the Bloc were interested in capitalizing on the scandal only so long as it serves to tear apart the country.

"They want to put an end to this Canada that generations of Canadians and Quebecers have built, this Canada that is the envy of the world."

Duceppe wasn't the only leader targeting Martin over the sponsorship scandal.
"I think this is a dark time for democracy in Canada," said Layton.

"People are turning their backs on democracy; they don't want to vote. Why? Because they saw these sorts of scandals from the people in power.

"With the NDP, we will change this. We can rejuvenate democracy here in Canada with more NDP members."

Harper rounded out the sponsorship attack, telling Canadians they have a choice on Jan. 23 to turf the Liberals.

"This government needs to be replaced in order to be held accountable," Harper said.
The French-language debate was aimed primarily at Quebec. Polls suggest the Bloc hold a commanding lead over the scandal-scarred Liberals.

Duceppe has made it clear he would love nothing more than to pulverize the Liberals in Quebec by winning as many of the province's 75 seats as possible.

The Liberals have acknowledged they face a major challenge holding onto the 21 Quebec seats they won last year.

An internal party e-mail the Liberals' Quebec wing mistakenly sent to some reporters this week indicates the party has already written off 45 ridings and feels confident of success in only 10 others.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:14 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 15, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Madrid) Spain's highest court has, for the time being, upheld the constitutionality of a law allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Two regional judges had challenged the validity of the law, arguing in separate cases that it violated the country's constitution.

In a split decision by the Constitutional Court the two cases were rejected, but only on procedural grounds.

However, another challenge to the law, by the opposition Popular Party, has not been considered by the High Court yet. The court said it will hear arguments in the case at a later date.

In the meantime, the two judges who challenged the law will be required to perform same-sex marriages.

Judge Francisco Garcia, from Gran Canaria, had refused to register same-sex marriages until the court ruled.

"Heterosexuality is the fundamental and identifying element of the institution of marriage," Garcia told to the Spanish news agency Efe when he filed the suit. In July, a judge in the southern town of Alicante also asked for a ruling for the Constitutional Court.

The court has not said when it will hear the case brought by the Popular Party.

In June Spain became the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after the Netherlands and Belgium. Shortly after that Canada legalized same-sex marriage. Earlier this month the Constitutional Court in South Africa, ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Spain's Popular Party led the attack on same-sex marriage in Parliament. At Senate committee hearings the party produced a psychology professor at Madrid's Catholic university who called homosexuality a "disease" and said that gay adoption would turn children gay.

In the weeks that led up to the historic vote the party and the Catholic Church mounted a rally in Madrid that attracted thousands of people.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:12 AM

by Peter Moore, 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: December 15, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(London) A British LGBT rights group on Thursday said that civil partnerships could harm some gay and lesbian couples, especially if they are poor, sick or elderly.

The first civil partnerships will be held next week throughout the UK. Under the law same-sex couples who register as civil partners will have the same rights as married couples.

But, even if they do not register they will be affected by some of the law's provisions.

Andrew Brettell is 63 years old and lives in Kent with his 44 year-old partner Martin. They have cohabited for 18 years and took out a mortgage 16 years ago.

Now, as a result of benefit changes introduced to coincide with civil partnerships, Brettell will suffer benefit cuts of over $10,000 a year, even though he and his partner are not registering.
"Because of my ill-health and my poor work record, I am on pension credit," Brettell said Thursday.

He said that his pension credit is means-tested and his partner’s income will now be taken into account.

"I will lose £460 a month in pension credit, plus housing benefit of £50 per month. My total benefits loss is £6,120 a year; plus the loss of free dental and prescription charges."

Gay rights group OutRage is calling on the government to immediately put in place transitional protections for people like Brettell and his partner.

"Transitional protection has been given in the past when benefit rules have changed," said Aaron Saeed of OutRage.

"Andrew and Martin based their mortgage commitments on the benefit rules as they were. They had no indication these rules would ever change in their lifetimes," said Saeed.

"We accept there should be parity of benefit entitlement with cohabiting heterosexual couples, but we want the government to provide relief to same-sex couples hard-hit by the newrules," he said.

Saeed said that thousands of same-sex couples will be adversely affected by the civil partnership law.

"Couples have no choice. The new arrangements are being forced on same-sex partners who choose not to register a civil partnership, as well as those who do."

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:10 AM

Boston.com
By Jorgen Johansson December 15, 2005
RIGA (Reuters) - Latvian lawmakers blocked same-sex marriages by changing the Baltic state's constitution on Thursday, infuriating gay rights activists who said they may take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Ex-Soviet Latvia, which joined the European Union last year, sees itself as a progressive democracy enjoying one of Europe's fastest growing economies. But many people retain conservative views about the family and gay rights.

"It is ridiculous that Latvia is sinking into a homophobic society when the rest of Europe is going the other way," said political analyst Karlis Streips, who is openly gay.

Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands have all allowed gay marriages in the last five years, while a British law permitting same-sex civil partnerships came into effect earlier this month.

Analysts said Thursday's amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman had effectively blocked the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Latvia.

"Of course we will be called homophobes and worse," said Minister for Children and Family Affairs Ainars Bastiks. "But we are a democracy and we have a right to make our own decisions after discussions."

He added: "For conservative societies it shows that we can protect our values."

Latvia's parliament passed the amendment easily, with 65 votes for, six against and nine abstentions, a result that drew applause from some lawmakers.

"This is not against gays. It is supporting traditional families," said lawmaker Oskars Kastens of the First Party, a ruling-coalition party that proposed the amendment.

"Looking at trends in Europe we are against liberalization of the idea of family. It is the same in both Lithuania and Poland."

Latvian gay rights activists immediately denounced the decision, saying it was discriminatory and ran counter to a European trend toward recognizing same sex marriages.

"I think the decision in parliament today ... will add to the growing homophobia in today's society," said Maris Sants, a spokesman for gay rights group ILGA Latvia.

"Our next step could be to go to the human rights court in Europe," he said.

In July Latvia's first gay pride march, promoted as a turning point in its tolerance of sexual minorities, was suddenly canceled after complaints from the prime minister.

"We are a state based on Christian values and we cannot promote things that are unacceptable for a large part of society," said Prime Minister Minister Aigars Kalvitis.

The ban was later lifted, but the thin straggle of marchers were menaced by thousands of angry anti-gay protestors.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:04 AM

Article published Dec 15, 2005

BRATTLEBORO —

The first same-sex couple in the United States to receive many of the legal rights of marriage are in the process of dissolving their historic civil union in Vermont.

Carolyn Conrad asked a Brattleboro court in October to end her civil union with Kathleen Peterson after five years and that their home and property be split up. The two women had been in a relationship for about 10 years, according to court documents.

Conrad and her attorney, Angela Prodan of Brattleboro, would not comment on the request to dissolve the union. Peterson, who is representing herself in the proceedings, declined to comment on why the relationship ended.

"All I want to say is that the civil union was a big source of pride for me and now it's not," Peterson said Wednesday night.

Conrad, 35, and Peterson, 46, were legally united just moments after Vermont's landmark civil union law went into effect at midnight on July 1, 2000. They were the first same-sex couple in the country to receive benefits similar to those of married couples.The two women — who met on a hiking trip several years earlier — received the first civil union license in Vermont by Brattleboro Town Clerk Annette Cappy during a ceremony at a small park in front of the town offices."We didn't plan on being the first," Conrad told a Reuters reporter at the time. "But we wanted to do it as soon as possible, and (the town clerk) was kind enough to agree."

The breakup is a milestone in the movement to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual marriage. But people should not be surprised that same-sex couples experience similar relationship problems as traditional couples, said Bari Shamus of Brattleboro, one of the founding members of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force.

"There's no proof that our relationships are any better than heterosexual relationships," Shamas said. "We all experience similar issues in relationships."Up-to-date information on the number of civil unions that have been dissolved in Vermont was not available Wednesday. But from July 1, 2000, through the end of 2004, according to the Vermont Office of Vital Records, 7,549 couples have filed for civil unions in Vermont and there have been 78 dissolutions.

A large majority of same-sex couple seeking civil unions come to Vermont just for that purpose. Only 15 percent of the civil unions, 1,137, were couples who were Vermont residents.A little more than two-thirds of the same-sex couples who filed for civil unions were women.

Shamas said weathering difficult times may be more difficult for a same-sex couple because there is less of a community support system than for straight couples.

Brattleboro Family Court Judge Karen Carroll granted a relief-from-abuse order against Peterson Wednesday after Conrad filed for an emergency order against her partner on Dec. 7, according to court documents.Peterson is barred from contacting Conrad and must remain more than 100 feet from her home, workplace and vehicle, according to the order. The court sent a copy of the order to the Vermont State Police on Wednesday and a follow-up hearing is scheduled for Jan. 4, 2006.

Conrad stated that she feared physical harm from Peterson after she allegedly punched a hole in the wall during an argument in late August, and threatened to harm a female friend of Peterson's in early December, according to an affidavit filed at the court.

"At this point, I believe her behavior is escalating and I am fearful for my safety," Conrad wrote in her court statement.

Peterson would not comment on the allegations.

Under Vermont's civil union law, same sex couples receive such marital benefits as the right to make medical decisions for each other and the ability to file joint tax returns.Since the historic bill was signed into law by then-Gov. Howard Dean, Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage and Connecticut and New Jersey have begun allowing civil unions.

Meanwhile, more than 30 states have passed laws in recent years prohibiting the extension of marital rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Contact Daniel Barlow at daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:01 AM

Quad City Times
By Charlotte Eby
DES MOINES — Republican state lawmakers say they will push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Iowa after six same-sex couples filed legal action Tuesday claiming they should have the right to marry.

The Iowa couples filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court claiming denial of a marriage license violates their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Camilla Taylor of Lambda Legal, said it is among six such legal actions the gay rights group has filed around the country.
“This lawsuit is about love, commitment, family and what is fair,” Taylor said. “These couples are in love with each other, and they have been for years. They are ready and willing to make the commitment and to take on the responsibilities and obligations of marriage.”

Iowa Senate Co-President Jeff Lamberti, R-Ankeny, said the legal challenge to Iowa’s marriage laws brings a “new urgency” for lawmakers to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. “We have a direct attack on Iowa law,” he said.
The couples filing the lawsuit say they should have the same legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy, including being able to visit each other in the hospital and to make medical decisions on each other’s behalf.

“At its heart, this case is about government standing in the way of two people who are trying to follow through on their commitment to each other,” Taylor said.

One of the couples suing is Jason Morgan, 35, and Chuck Swaggerty, 33, of Sioux City, who have been together nearly eight years. Morgan said he was not allowed to take paid bereavement time from his job at a bank when his partner’s mother died.

“We feel that we deserve the right to be married,” Morgan said. “On an everyday basis, it’s awkward and inadequate to describe Chuck as just a friend or roommate when he is more than that.”

The GOP-controlled Iowa House last session passed a resolution supporting the constitutional change after same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses.

“We said at the time, a challenge will come in Iowa, and sure enough it has,” said Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.

Senate GOP leaders said they want to bring the amendment up for debate when the Legislature reconvenes next month. Senate Republicans could not get enough votes in 2004 to support a constitutional amendment, even when they held a clear majority. Now that the Senate is evenly divided between the parties, finding support might be more difficult.

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs would not say whether he might block debate on the measure. But he questioned the wisdom of moving forward with a constitutional amendment simply because a lawsuit has been filed. He said lawmakers would still have the option of moving forward with a constitutional amendment if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs.

“I’m pretty confident that the court is going to uphold the state law,” Gronstal said.
If a measure supporting a constitutional amendment were to clear the Senate next year, it would have to clear the full Legislature a second time in 2007. The earliest it could be handed to voters for consideration would be the fall of 2007, said Senate Republican Leader Stewart Iverson.

Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a right-wing political group, said many in Iowa’s religious community will join the push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Charlotte Eby can be contacted at
(515) 243-0138 or chareby@aol.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:38 AM

By CANDACE TAYLOR, New Haven Register, December 12, 2005
New Haven Register
12/12/2005
No deluge of civil unions
Candace Taylor, Register Staff

During Barbara Levine-Ritterman’s battle last year with breast cancer, or, as her 10-year-old daughter Maya calls it, "the C-word," Levine-Ritterman suffered life-threatening pneumonia.
In addition to chills, fever and calming her two children, who were "freaking out," Barbara recalls, she feared what would happen if she was admitted to the intensive care unit. Would hospital staff allow Robin Levine-Ritterman, her partner of 13 years, to visit her?

"I’ve visited people in ICUs, and I know how strict the rules are," Barbara said in the living room of the sunny Westville home she shares with Robin and the kids. "To think we’d have to end up fighting for her to come and see me. ... It was really scary."

And during that harrowing eight-day hospital stay, Barbara said, "I didn’t need anything else to worry about."

That’s one reason why the Levine-Rittermans plan to enter into a Connecticut civil union, which will grant them the same state-based legal rights as married couples, including hospital visitation rights.

But despite the trauma of Barbara’s illness, the Levine-Rittermans, like many other gay couples, haven’t rushed to get hitched through civil union since the law took effect more than three months ago.

Data from the group Love Makes a Family indicates just 539 gay couples sought civil unions in Connecticut in the first six weeks after the law took effect, compared with more than 3,000 couples in Massachusetts who got marriage licenses in the same period. Though the population of Massachusetts is roughly double that of Connecticut, nearly six times more gay couples were married there than entered civil unions in Connecticut.

According to Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, Connecticut is lagging because many gay couples are ambivalent about civil unions, which they feel carry a second-class status.
"This is an issue of basic human rights," Stanback said. "Gay couples need and want the full security, dignity and commitment of marriage, not a parallel, separate status that continues to leave them vulnerable and unequal."

While legal protections are important, they don’t tell the whole story, she said, adding: "I don’t think most heterosexual couples decide to get married to get access to an intensive care facility."
The Levine-Rittermans plan to enter a civil union, once they find the time between shuttling Maya to horseback riding lessons and Joshua, 8, to tae kwon do.

But if the law allowed marriage, Barbara said, "We would have done it Oct. 1."

Since their 1992 commitment ceremony, the couple has secured as many legal protections for their union as possible. A civil union would extend those rights, though they still wouldn’t be able to file taxes together, or have their union recognized outside Connecticut. The federal government does not recognize civil unions.

"We’re going to go do it because we think we should have those legal rights," Robin said. "But it’s not very meaningful for us," Barbara said. "To be able to be married — that would have real emotional resonance. If Maya could say to her friends, ‘My mommies are married,’ they’d know exactly what she meant.(Civil union) just isn’t in the cultural vocabulary.

The Levine-Rittermans say gay couples they know have had mixed reactions to civil union legislation. Some got civil unions immediately and threw parties to celebrate. Others say they won’t, ever. "They feel it’s offensive," Barbara said. "Separate but unequal."

It’s this last group that Stanback is the most worried about.

"Massachusetts is not very far away," Stanback said. "I would hate to see good workers and good citizens moving to Massachusetts because they have marriage and we don’t."

Sometimes, said Woodbridge resident Garrett Stack, it’s tempting to pack up and move to Canada, Spain or one of the other countries where gay marriage is legal. Stack said he and his partner, John Anderson, who entered into a civil union in a ceremony at their home Oct. 1, have been reading with envy about the impending nuptials of Elton John in England.

Stack said it felt good to walk down the aisle in the grocery store a few weeks after their civil union, spot a heterosexual couple, and realize "in the eyes of the state, they’re making an attempt to call us the same," Stack said. "I like that."

But, he added, "I never want to say it’s marriage because it’s not marriage."

He and Anderson have encountered many people, including workers in medical offices, who don’t recognize the term ‘civil union.’

"People that this doesn’t affect, it’s not really on their radar," he said. "We have a perfectly wonderful thing called marriage. That’s what we want. That’s equality. Marriage is equality."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:35 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 13, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) Six same-sex couples filed suit Tuesday in Polk County seeking to have Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act struck down.

"This lawsuit is about fairness and equality," said Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor who is representing the couples.

"Since marriage is the way the government provides protection, support and respect for families, it is only fair that these couples be able to marry."

The suit argues that under the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa State Constitution it is unlawful to bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since the lawsuit is based on state law, the Iowa Supreme Court will have the final word on the outcome of this case.
"Without marriage, there is no way for me to declare who Trish is in my life," said Kate Varnum, a plaintiff in the case. "We want our family to be protected and treated fairly."

Kate Varnum, 31, and her partner Trish Hyde, 40, have been in a committed relationship for nearly five years.

They live six blocks away from Kate's childhood home, in Cedar Rapids and go to the church Kate grew up attending. They are conflicted when filling out forms because they can't accurately check either the "single" or "married" box. Kate says, "Without marriage there is no way for me to declare who Trish is in my life."

Dennis Johnson, former Solicitor General of Iowa, and now in private practice is working with Lambda on the case.

"Same-sex couples who are ready and willing to take on the responsibilities that come with marriage should have that opportunity," Johnson told a Des Moines news conference Tuesday.
David Twombley, 64, and Larry Hoch, 63, are another of the couples in the lawsuit. Both retired teachers they have been in a committed relationship for over four years.

They said they want to get married because as they age they increasingly feel vulnerable and wonder if their wishes will be respected during medical emergencies.

Another of the couples, Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske, 37 and 35 respectively, of Iowa City, have been together for over 15 years and have two children, McKinley, 7, and Breeanna, 3.
Together, they formed a playgroup for gay and lesbian families called Proud Families, and both serve as Girl Scouts leaders.

After Jen delivered McKinley eight weeks early, they realized that Dawn could be prevented from being with their daughter in the hospital because she was not legally related to either Jen or the baby - making an already stressful time more traumatic.

Because they were not married, they had to leave their daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit at the hospital to seek the help of an attorney to draw up documents to protect Dawn's rights. This experience highlighted for them just how important it is to be able to marry.
Also involved in the suit are Ingrid Olson, 27, and Reva Evans, 31, of Council Bluffs, who have been together for nearly eight years; Jason Morgan, 35, and Chuck Swaggerty, 33, of Sioux City, a couple for eight years; and Bill Musser, 47, and Otter Dreaming, 48, of Decorah, who have been together for over four years.

The suit is the latest in a number of challenges to laws preventing same-sex marriage throughout the country.

While Iowa already has a Defense of Marriage Act that denies same-sex couples the right to marry, an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to block gay marriage died in the legislature earlier this year.

A conservative group promoting the amendment issued a statement calling the lawsuit an attempt to circumvent the will of the people.

"Rather than trusting Iowans to decide this critical social issue, Lambda Legal hopes to force Iowans to accept same-sex marriage through the courts," said Chuck Hurley president of the Iowa Family Policy Center. "The people of Iowa should decide this issue, not a handful of unelected judges."

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:32 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 13, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Princeton, New Jersey) Students at Princeton University - considered the most conservative of Ivy League schools - have given a thumbs up to same-sex marriage.

Two questions concerning gay marriage were put to students on the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) winter ballot. The referenda were highly unusual. Most years the ballot is confined to selecting representatives for the USG.

The first question asked if the student government should sign an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs in a lawsuit before the state Supreme Court. The second asked students whether they support the right of consenting adult couples to marry, regardless of sexuality.

On the first question students voted 51 to 48 percent in favor of becoming involved in the gay marriage case. On the second question 73 percent of undergraduates said sexuality should not be an issue in marrying.

"This vote was a test of how much Princeton students value and are willing to substantiate one of the fundamental civil rights issues of our time," Tom Bohnett, president of the Princeton Justice Project, told the Trenton Times.

The election was closely watched by the administration. Supporters of equal marriage both in the student body and the administration said that gay marriage directly affects the university.
"Princeton's at a competitive disadvantage in attracting talented gay high school students because those students won't have the same rights (in New Jersey) as their straight peers," said senior Chris Lloyd, president of his class, a member of the Princeton Justice Project and who is gay.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has not said when it will hear oral arguments in the same-sex marriage case.

Seven same-sex couples filed suit in 2002 for the right to marry.

In June, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same-sex marriage. The court, in a split decision, said that it is up to the legislature to change marriage laws if same-sex couples are to wed in the Garden State.
Lambda Legal which is representing the couples immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court. Last month in a brief the court Lambda argued that the denial of marriage equality is unconstitutional.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:21 AM

by Fidel Ortega, 365Gay.com Miami Bureau
Posted: December 12, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Miami, Florida) Both declared candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination for Florida governor say that if elected they would push to repeal the state's ban on gay adoption.
Speaking before 2,000 delegates attending a three-day conference that ended today at Walt Disney World in Orlando,

Rod Smith, a state senator from Gainesville, and Jim Davis, a Tampa-area congressman told the party faithful that the ban is discriminatory and harms children who need parents.

"It is time to put the interests of children first in the adoption process," Smith said. "As governor I will support a law that says a family court judge should look solely to the best interests of the child, and we'll allow any loving parents to adopt."

Davis said the law banning gays from adopting but allowing them to be foster parents makes no sense.

"We have many, many children in this state languishing in foster care. It is a tragedy," he said.
The three day conference was aimed at drumming up support for the party in a state where the GOP dominates. Republicans control the governor's mansion, the House and the Senate.
Smith and Davis' positions drew ire from the state's GOP chair. "With this event, Florida Democrat candidates have nothing more to offer our state's voters than closer ties to the far-left wing of the Democrat party," said Carole Jean Jordan in a prepared statement.

Gov. Jeb Bush can't seek re-election due to term limits, and Democrats are hoping to make inroads in 2006.

The ban was passed in 1977 in response to Anita Bryant's infamous anti-gay campaign. Bryant, a one-time Miss America led the effort to overturn Miami-Dade's civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. Following her successful campaign she turned her attention to banning gay adoption alleging gays were likely to be child molesters.

The law, described as the most punitive adoption law in the country, has been defended by Gov. Bush and the leadership in both the House and Senate.

A bill has been introduced in both houses but most observers give it little chance of passing. A similar measure failed in the Legislature last year.

Last year the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the ban, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

There are more than 1,000 children in Florida in need of adoptive parents.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:18 AM

Dec. 12, 2005. 11:27 AM
CANADIAN PRESS

ANCASTER, Ont. - Prime Minister Paul Martin is calling on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to say whether he'd use the notwithstanding clause to override the Constitution and revoke same sex marriage legislation.

Martin says it's clearly a Charter of Rights issue, and he believes Harper eventually will have to state whether he'd use the constitutional override to keep his promise to scrap gay marriages.
The Liberal leader says he doesn't believe the prime minister of Canada should be able to cherry pick which Charter rights to support.

Martin says the right to same sex marriage has already been established by the Liberals, and as a right should be defended and supported by the prime minister.

He accuses Harper of attacking the Charter of Rights, and says he doesn't know what the Tory leader's agenda is on the issue.

However, Martin notes the law allowing same sex marriages in Canada cannot be reversed without using the notwithstanding clause.

Harper has been fairly quiet about his plans to repeal the same-sex marriage legislation since he was asked about it at the beginning of the campaign for the Jan. 23 election, and said a Conservative government would put an end to the practice.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:18 AM

Current Status of Marriage Cases in New York where Same-Sex Couples are Plaintiffs
December 6, 2005

Hernandez v. Robles -- Lambda Legal filed Hernandez v. Robles in March 2004 on behalf of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York, arguing that denying them marriage violates the state Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers. The five plaintiff couples in the case have been together between four to 23 years, and three of the five couples have children. The trial court issued its ruling in the couple’s favor in February 2005, which New York City decided to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court. On March 31, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case should first be heard in the mid-level appeals court in the First Department. The case was argued before the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department , in New York City on September 13, 2005 and could be decided at any time.

Samuels and Gallagher v. New York – The ACLU filed Samuels and Gallagher v. New York in April 2004 on behalf of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York, arguing that denying them licenses violates the state Constitution’s guarantees of equality, liberty, and the right to marry. The plaintiff couples, who come from throughout the state, have been together between six and 35 years and four couples have children. The trial court ruled against the couples in December 2004, which was appealed by the ACLU to the mid-level court. The case was argued before the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, in Albany on October 17, 2005 and could be decided at any time.

Shields v. New York – Attorneys, including Norman Siegel the former head of the NYCLU, filed Shields v. New York in March 2004 on behalf of ten same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York. They argue that same-sex marriage rights exist under current statute and that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses violates the state Constitution’s guarantees of equality and the right to marry. The trial court in Rockland County ruled against the couples in October 2004, which was appealed by their attorneys to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, in Brooklyn where it is pending with no date set for arguments.

Seymour v. Holcomb – Attorneys filed this case in June 2004 on behalf of 25 same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York, arguing that denying them marriage violates the state Constitution’s guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers. The couples represent a broad diversity of ages, employment and educational background, and include teachers, attorneys, social workers, librarians, business people, students and stay-at home parents. The trial court in Elmira ruled against the couples in February 2005, which was appealed by their attorneys to the mid-level court. The case was argued before the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, in Albany on October 17, 2005 the same time as Samuels and could be decided at any time.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:15 AM

Ebar.com
12/12/05

The two proposed antigay constitutional amendments for California likely will not make it to the June 2006 ballot, organizers said last week. One of them has been delayed indefinitely, while the more organized “ and perhaps more marketable “ antigay initiative appears likely to be headed for the November 2006 election.

Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families said his measure, which specifically seeks to ban gay marriage and revoke current domestic partner rights, would not gather the 598,105 necessary signatures in time to qualify for next June's ballot. The effort may not have the money or support in place to qualify for the November 2006 ballot, either, he said.

"Whether it be November 2006 or sometime in 2008, it doesn't matter," Thomasson told the MediaNews Group about his ballot initiative plans.

"Ultimately, two-thirds of Californians want marriage protected for one man and one woman," Thomasson said, citing numbers from the 2000 election where 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, which banned gay marriage in the family code.

Five years after that election, however, the state is now split evenly, with 46 percent of likely voters in favor of and opposed to gay marriage. But banking on similar campaigns “ constitutional gay marriage bans have passed in every other state they have been on the ballot “ antigay activists want to use the "threat" of gay marriage to turn back the clock on hard-won LGBT gains in California. The proposed initiatives would ban any legislation or court rulings that provided legal recognition to same-sex couples, and because they are constitutional amendments, could not be overturned by any state courts or laws.

Thomasson proposal

Widely considered to be the more extreme of the two antigay ballot initiatives in circulation, the Thomasson effort began with a court fight to challenge the measure's title, "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partner Rights" and legislative summary assigned by Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

In legal arguments, Thomasson's group said that people in domestic partnerships would still have many of the same rights under the proposed amendment, pointing to the fact that the measure could not dismantle, for instance, the right to bequeath personal property and other rights guaranteed to all individuals outside of a recognized union.

Yet even before a series of court rulings upheld the assigned title and summary, Thomasson's camp switched targets and began to publicly criticize its rival initiative for not being specific enough in its discrimination, claiming that only by specifically dismantling domestic partnerships could a constitutional amendment truly protect the "essence of marriage."

"You MUST protect marriage rights against 'marriage by another name,'" warns the initiative's Web site at http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/, referencing progay rulings around the country and domestic partnership laws like California's “ the most extensive in the nation “ that equate domestic partners with married spouses in matters of some health and retirement benefits, property transfer rights, and child custody responsibilities.

"The People find that marriage between one man and one woman is diminished when government requires private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or when government bestows statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals," declares the initiative's preamble, which also states that "it is in a child's best interest to have a mother and a father."

The Web site goes on to reference how male and female physical anatomy fits together during sexual intercourse and how California legislation protecting LGBT families threatens heterosexual marriage.

Such specificity may have been its downfall.

Knight measure

The apparent shift in California's political climate, as evidenced by the defeat of several conservative ballot measures in last month's special election, likely contributed to the difficulties of the Thomasson camp. But LGBT advocates have cautioned that the more temperate approach to dismantling gay rights organized under Gail Knight's Protect Marriage Amendment may be an easier sell.

"Marriage. Invalidation of Domestic Partnerships" is the state-assigned title of the initiative backed by Gail Knight, the widow of the late state Senator Pete Knight, author of the 2000 gay marriage ban Proposition 22. Gail Knight's initiative states that only marriage can be a legally recognized union in California and it has been interpreted by the attorney general and legal experts to be broad enough to revoke current domestic partnership protections. Organizers at http://www.protectmarriage.com/ have reportedly collected hundreds of thousands of signatures for this proposed constitutional amendment through a dedicated volunteer base.

"It's hard to know what to think in regard to Thomasson, who has threatened many ballot measures and the recall of many judges and has been a lot of talk with very little action," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a member of Equality for All, the broad statewide coalition organized to fight the antigay initiatives. EQCA recently announced that it just added five new field organizers around the state and will open two new Southern California offices, all while continuing its regular community outreach and town hall meetings in its fight against the initiatives.

"But Knight's efforts have been successful before. If [her representatives] claim they have been very successful, then we have reason to believe they are being honest," Kors added.
Several versions of Knight's amendment have been submitted to the state; each subsequent version comes with a later signature deadline and effectively nulls and voids signatures gathered for any previous versions. Organizers at http://www.protectmarriage.com/ are currently collecting signatures on the first version submitted, according to Andy Pugno, the attorney for protectmarriage.com, and are aiming to make the December 27 deadline in order to qualify for the November 2006 ballot. If not, he said, another version is also circulating with a later deadline that is still eligible for next November's ballot.

Even before the delays were announced, state Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) was predicting them.

"I'm not sure these threats will actually materialize. I'm not sure they'll qualify or get funded," Migden, the author of the state's original domestic partnership law, told the Bay Area Reporter last week. "I'd say that Californians are fed up and disgusted by the abuse of the initiative process. Meanwhile, the polling is off the charts with regard to domestic partnership issues; it has become kind of mainstreamed. Even George W. Bush, when he came out against gay marriage, proposed domestic partnerships."

Migden also said that she believes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will speak out against the initiatives if they are finalized for the ballot.

"I don't think Republicans would see domestic partnerships as a helpful wedge issue. Schwarzenegger did sign my property rights bill this year and other bills that help to complete our template of legal benefits. He would not support the upheaval of bills he signed into law," she said, adding that she was not suggesting the LGBT community could afford to be complacent. "We still must be vigilant and mobilize. We will beat back anything they propose."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:46 AM

(updated 12:18 a.m.)
2005/12/11The China Post staff

Two men tied the knot in a public ceremony in Taipei yesterday -- the World Human Rights Day -- to promote public awareness about gay rights.

Chen Chin-hsueh, who helped found a gay rights group to promote the political rights of people with homosexual orientation, took a man with the pseudonym name of "Ah Wei" as his partner at a wedding ceremony held at a five-star hotel.

This would be only the third public marriage for gays in Taiwan.

Families from both sides and representatives from gay rights groups witnessed the matrimony and offered their best wishes.

Chen, 33, explained that he and his lover would rather call their wedding ceremony an "engagement ceremony" because the government of the Republic of China still lacks laws to recognize such gay matrimony.

There are also no specific rules governing the property rights of people who choose to marry partners of the same sex.

He said that he already had his will certified three weeks ago to "give" the NT$2 million in his bank accounts to "Ah Wei" should anything happens to him.

Chen said he could have saved the hassle if the government adopted rules that safeguard the rights of homosexual people and automatically bequeath a deceased gay spouse's assets to the surviving spouse.

He expressed the hope that the city government would follow the steps of San Francisco in California to set up a "spouse registration system" to allow gays and their companions to share and enjoy these rights and obligations.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:45 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 9, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Portland, Oregon) Portland could soon become the latest city to require companies holding city contracts to provide health benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees.
The proposal has been introduced by City Commissioner Sam Adams, the city's first openly gay city commissioner.

Portland already provides health coverage to the same-sex partners of municipal workers.
Adams proposal would exempt companies that do not provide any benefits to their workers. But if a firm offers benefits to the spouses of married workers they would be required to offer the same benefits to gay and lesbian employees.

"It pales in comparison to the rights gays or lesbians could achieve with gay marriage and civil unions," Adams told the Oregonian newspaper. "But given our limited powers, it's what we can do."

Adams said he believes the proposal could pass unanimously. Mayor Tom Potter and commissioners Randy Leonard, Dan Saltzman and Erik Sten already support the concept.
But, conservative groups and some businesses oppose the plan.

Ten municipalities across the country have similar laws.

A lawsuit by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry is heading to the Supreme Court of Oregon. Last month a lower court judge upheld the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The issue of same-sex marriage in the state arose last year when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Portland is located in the county.
Soon after, the Multnomah was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted.

In April, the Oregon Supreme Court threw out the Multnomah County marriage licenses, saying it was not within the county's rights to issue them.

Following the court decision, Gov. Ted Kulongoski supported a bill that would have granted same-sex couples the same rights under civil unions that married couples get through marriage. It passed the Democratically controlled Senate in July but ran into a roadblock in the Republican controlled House.

House Speaker Karen Minnis refused to allow the bill to come to a vote claiming the bill violated the marriage amendment.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:13 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 9, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) being pilloried for days by members of his own party for picking a left-leaning Democratic activist to be his top aide.

The governor said politics had nothing to do with his nomination of San Francisco appellate Judge Carol Corrigan to replace Janice Rogers Brown, now a federal appeals court judge.

"This is the best of the best that we have in the state," Schwarzenegger said in introducing Corrigan, a 57-year-old former prosecutor."Justice Corrigan is careful, thoughtful, quick-witted and brings a deliberate, detail-oriented approach to the law. She will bring honor to California's high court and serve the people with dignity and integrity."

Pressure on Schwarzenegger to name a conservative to the bench had grown in recent days, after he angered many Republicans by choosing Susan Kennedy, a longtime Democratic activist, to be his chief of staff.

A panel consisting of the state's chief justice, attorney general and an appeals court judge will decide whether to confirm Corrigan's nomination.

Corrigan said the cornerstone of her judicial philosophy is that "the law doesn't belong to judges, it belongs to people."

She declined to answer a question about gay marriage, an issue that is likely to come before the high court. She said the topic never came up in her conversations with Schwarzenegger.

Corrigan is considered more moderate than Brown, whose confirmation for the federal bench had been blocked for two years by Senate Democrats.

While on the California Supreme Court Brown in 2003 was the only justice on that court to rule against recognizing the right of gay Californians to legally adopt their children. Brown argued that allowing a gay parent to legally adopt the biological child of their partner "trivializes family bonds."
©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:07 AM

NATIONAL NEWS washingtonblade.com

Univ. of Florida defies ban threat, adopts benefits
By ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG Dec. 09, 2005
The University of Florida last week became the first public university in the state to offer health insurance benefits to partners of unmarried faculty.

Now gay rights advocates are turning their attention to defeating a constitutional amendment petition drive that could roll back protections for gay couples.

Florida public employees, including faculty at state universities, can only have their spouse or legal dependent covered by their insurance, said Karen Doering, regional counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. That policy forces the University of Florida to find and fund a comparable insurance plan to offer its unmarried employees.

Kyle Cavanaugh, University of Florida’s vice president of human resources, said the benefits program will make the University of Florida a more competitive school and better suited to attract the most qualified faculty. The program is expected to cost $500,000 to $1 million annually, or about 1 percent of UF’s total health care budget of $71 million, Cavanaugh said.
“This has been about our constant push to compete at the national level,” he said.

While Cavanaugh said the response has been mostly positive, state Rep. Larry Cretul (R-Ocala) reportedly plans to introduce a bill to bar institutions from using taxpayer money for domestic partner programs.

Gay rights activists fear that a vaguely worded constitutional amendment could threaten public employees’ health insurance and domestic partner benefits. Several jurisdictions offer some type of domestic partner benefits program.

Even though Florida law bans gays from marrying, the Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage began collecting signatures last February to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban anything but marriage between a man and a woman.

The amendment reads: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

The Coalition to Protect Marriage has collected about 120,000 signatures, or about 20 percent of what is needed by February 2006, according to Brian Winfield, communications director for Equality Florida.

Coalition members, Liberty Counsel and Florida’s Christian Coalition, were not available for comment.

“Our concern is where similar amendments have passed, governmental bodies have stopped providing benefits,” said Rebecca Steele, regional director of the ACLU of Florida. “We’re not saying the amendments necessarily will have this effect but it opens the door to challenges.”
The Florida Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the ballot language filed by the ACLU, Equality Florida and the NCLR. They argue that the proposed amendment violates Florida law, which requires that a constitutional amendment address only one subject.

In Liberty Counsel’s brief to the state Supreme Court, it insists that any legal union that provides less than all the rights of marriage will not be affected by the amendment. The amendment is necessary, the group contends in its brief, to preserve “traditional marriage,” allegedly threatened in Vermont, California and Connecticut.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:06 AM

by Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: December 8, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(New York City) A New York State appeals court on Thursday overturned a ruling that the state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled 4-1 that New York City judge Doris Ling-Cohan erred in her ruling last February and then proceeded to wrap her knuckles for the way she did it.

"We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right," the four majority justices said.

A dissenting opinion by the fourth justice said that denying the rights and benefits of marriage to New York State's gay and lesbian "residents is contrary to the basic principles underlying our constitution, our legal system and our concepts of liberty and justice, and perpetuates a deeply ingrained form of legalized discrimination."

In her ruling Ling-Cohan said the state's ban on gay marriage was not only unconstitutional but also t hat the New York City clerk may not deny a marriage license solely because a couple is of the same sex.

The case was brought by 5 gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan. The were represented by Lambda Legal.

Today's appellate ruling was the result of an appeal by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Lambda Legal said it is anxious to argue the case before the state's highest court. Ling-Cohan put her ruling on hold because of the appeal.

"While we believe the trial court got it right, we anticipated that this case would be heard before the state's high court," said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the case.

"This is a question of basic constitutional rights for same-sex couples and their families, and history shows that fairness under the law will eventually prevail."

The state's largest LGBT civil rights group also said it expects gay couples will ultimately win in the high court and took issue with today's majority ruling that attacked judge Ling-Cohan.
"Our state constitution guarantees equal treatment for all New Yorkers," said Empire State Pride Agenda executive director Alan Van Capelle.

"Judges have not only a right but an obligation to interpret the state’s constitution and assert the rights of every citizen. We expect the high court will take this case and are optimistic that they will reaffirm this important principal of equal treatment by ruling in our favor."
The case is one of three currently working their way up the legal system to New York State's highest court.

In October an appeals court in Albany heard arguments in another of the cases. This one involved 12 same-sex couples and stemmed from a lower court ruling that said only the legislature could decide whether gay and lesbian couples can wed.

Among the litigants is New York State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and his partner John Banta. O'Donnell is the brother of Rosie O'Donnell. The appeals court has not ruling in the case

The third suit involves many of the same-sex couples who tried to marry in New Platz.
It is expected that all three cases eventually will reach New York's highest Court, the Court of Appeal. It is also expected that the three cases will be rolled together so that the justices can issue a single ruling on same-sex marriage.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:31 AM

by Mary Ellen Peterson, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: December 8, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) An appeal to the California Supreme Court will be filed early in the New Year in a controversial case involving two doctors who refused in vitro fertilization to a lesbian.

Last week an appeals court ruled that the doctors had the right to refuse to artificially inseminate the woman based on her marital status because it would have violated their religious beliefs.

The courted cited California nondiscrimination laws which did not include marital status at the time the service was refused. The law has since been revised to protect same-sex couples who cannot marry in California.

The ruling reversed a lower court decision that Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton could not use religion as a defense against a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe Benitez.

Lambda Legal, which represents Benitez said that it is concerned the appellate court ruling could create confusion and pose a continued hardship on lesbians seeking in vitro.

It's appeal is being supported by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. The San Francisco-based GLMA said it is seeking friend of the court briefs from other civil rights groups in the state.

The California Medical Association will also file a brief.

It originally supported the doctors but withdrew after it learned the suit involved a lesbian. Nevertheless a brief that had been submitted by the CMA was referred to in the appeal court ruling. The CMA says it will ask the Supreme Court to remove the reference.
Benitez, 33, filed suit the doctors and their practice in Vista, Califoria, in 2001, claiming their actions violated California's anti-discrimination laws.

Benitez was eventually treated elsewhere and gave birth to a boy who is now 3 years old.
In her suit, she claimed that Brody told her in 1999 that her religious beliefs prevented her from helping a lesbian conceive a child by artificial insemination, but that other physicians at the practice would be able to help her.

The next year, Benitez said, she was told that both Brody and Fenton were unable to help her because they did not feel comfortable with her sexual orientation.

In court, however, the doctors contended they denied treatment because Benitez and her registered domestic partner of 15 years were not married. Lambda Legal argued that Benitez was denied because of her sexual orientation, not her marital status.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:29 AM

The Eureka Reporter
by Kara D. Machado, 12/7/2005

“Now, therefore, be it resolved that the county of Humboldt declares its support for civil marriage licenses and any enactments which codify civil marriages equality for all couples residing in California who are citizens of the United States; and request our elected representatives in state and federal government to act with vigor to develop laws to allow same-sex marriage, defend same-sex civil marriages and protect the fundamental liberties of all families.”

“That is, indeed, the resolution we have before us,” Supervisor Jill Geist said.

It started with a prayer circle outside the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers at about 8:30 a.m. Tuesday and ended with the approval, about four hours later, of a resolution some called a “symbolic gesture” in favor ofsame-sex civil marriages.

Although the resolution did not allow same-sex couples “to run up and get (marriage) licenses,” Supervisor Roger Rodoni said, it did, many said, show that Humboldt County supports the concept of equality.

After close to three hours of public comment, both supporting and opposing the resolution, three of the four supervisors present at the meeting voted in favor of the resolution.

Supervisor Jimmy Smith was absent due to serving jury duty.

Rodoni, the opposing supervisor, said he did not support the resolution because of its language, referring to the word “marriage,” rather than domestic partnership being used in the resolution.

“This is political,” Rodoni said. “This is not about love, hate or indifference … this is political. … In order for me to support my constituents, I am not voting for the resolution.”The concept of Tuesday’s resolution was brought up in May after members of the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission drafted a resolution in regard to same-sex marriages.According to Byrd Lochtie, chair of the commission, the idea has gone back and forth between the supervisors and the commission for over a year, consisting of many public meetings.

Supervisors Bonnie Neely and Geist represented the board in a committee to discuss the issue.

The prayer circle — for which residents began gathering about half an hour before the supervisors’ meeting started — was geared for residents of all faith or no faith, said Jamila Tharp of the Equality California Humboldt Chapter.

“It was geared toward the human experience,” Tharp said. “To celebrate the one common characteristic of humanity: the ability to love.”Tharp was one of many people who crowded into the supervisors’ chambers Tuesday and spoke before the board.

Berti Welty was another.Welty said she and her same-sex partner have been together for 16 years and, like any other couple, do what they can to support each other, both in life and in death.

“Under my retirement system, my spouse would receive 60 percent (of my financial benefits) if something should happen to me,” Welty said. “But as my domestic partner, she receives nothing.

“However, under the domestic partnership law, she’s responsible for my debts in the case I got sick and (acquired) a whole bunch of bills. (And) if I died, she would have all (my) bills and none of my assets. This is one example of the current inequities.”

Of those who spoke were several pastors and ministers of multiple religions, some for and some against the resolution.

Rev. Rick McGinty, senior pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Eureka, was opposed to Tuesday’s resolution.“The new world order of moral relativism would have us believe that no one should judge another,” McGinty said. “This postmodern view may express a truth about our relative human judgments, but does it give God’s view?

“What if God really does exist and has a view by which he will judge the world in the end? Furthermore, there are limits to our tolerance of cultural diversity, for we are not very accepting of Nazi culture, for example. In the last 50 years, America has allowed the unbridled genocide of unborn children. Some states have enacted euthanasia laws to take to the lives of the elderly, weak and sick of society.”

McGinty added that “it was God who invented marriage.”“In the garden of Eden, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Javan Reid, a minister of the Grace Good Shepherd Church in McKinleyville and a recently elected member of the McKinleyville Community Services District, disagreed with McGinty and other religious opposers of the resolution.

Reid thanked the supervisors for even considering the resolution.“I fully support this endorsement and hope you will too,” Reid said during the public comment period.

“I hope you will see this as a civil issue and not as a religious issue.”Reid added that giving the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex partners would actually strengthen the institution of marriage.

Welty said adopting the resolution is a political stance for Humboldt County.“(This resolution) does not change the law, but simply is taking a stance (against it),” Welty said.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:24 AM

Article published Dec 8, 2005
Satr News Online

A state appeals court Thursday threw out a ruling that would have allowed gay couples to marry in New York City, saying it is not the role of judges to redefine the terms "husband" and "wife."The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled 4-1 that Justice Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not permit marriage between people of the same sex.

The appeals court added: "We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right."The Supreme Court is New York's main trial-level court. It has its own appeals division.

Ling-Cohan had ruled in favor of five gay couples who sued New York City because the city clerk had denied their marriage license applications. The gay couples complained that their equal protection and due process rights under the New York Constitution were violated.

Ling-Cohan barred the city clerk from denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Her decision was the first of its kind in New York City. In her ruling, she said the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride," as they appear in the domestic relations law, should be defined to apply equally to men and women.

But the appeals court said this "was an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and usurped that of the Legislature." The court said it is not up to judges to redefine terms that are given clear meaning in a statute.

Also, the appeals court said state laws regarding marriage do not violate the state constitution.In a dissent, Justice David Saxe said that he saw no important public interest in barring same-sex marriage and that laws that prohibit it perpetuate discrimination.

But the rest of the court said: "The legislative policy rationale is that society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing."

Susan Sommer, a lawyer at Lambda Legal, the gay rights organization that spearheaded the same-sex marriage drive, said, "You bet we're going to appeal."

"We've always known that this issue would have to be decided in the state's highest court, and we're eager to make our case there," Sommer said.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:21 AM

Daily News Tribune
By Emelie Rutherford
Thursday, December 8, 2005 BOSTON --

Gay marriage foes yesterday gave the secretary of state what they said are more than enough signatures to place a constitutional ban before lawmakers, stirring emotions of advocates on both sides of the marriage debate.

Voteonmarriage.org and six other campaigns trying to change the state’s laws and constitution through initiative petitions appear to have each delivered more than the required 65,825 signatures to place their proposals before the Legislature and, they hope, on the ballot. Secretary of State William Galvin still must scrutinize the signatures to see if they pass muster.
"It is a day to celebrate," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute in Newton.

The gay marriage ban would not allow civil unions, as a more moderate ban lawmakers rejected in September would have. Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage 19 months ago.

Natick’s Kim Puhala, who married her female partner in October, called yesterday’s signature delivery "disheartening."

"You have to have faith that the people of Massachusetts, if this did go to the ballot, would vote against discrimination," Puhala said.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders group plans to sue to stop the proposed amendment in January, said spokeswoman Carissa Cunningham.

Voteonmarriage.org delivered at least 148,200 signatures already certified by local officials to Galvin yesterday, Mineau said.

Supporters, such as Upton’s Bob Kilroy, volunteered hours on weekends this fall gathering signatures at their churches.

"I found a lot of support for the concept of allowing the people to decide the issue, irrespective of how people might feel on the merits," said Kilroy, who attends the First Congregational Church in Hopkinton.

The proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by one-quarter of lawmakers in two Legislative sessions for it to be placed on the ballot for voters to decide.

Supporters of six initiative petitions to usher in new laws also delivered what they believe are enough signatures to Galvin yesterday. They would: provide near-universal health coverage, end greyhound racing, let more grocery stores sell wine, allow voters to vote for major party candidates on minor party tickets, create a council to help locate certified Personal Care Attendants and help childcare providers bargain contracts with the state.

The Legislature has until May 3 to approve any of the proposed laws. If lawmakers do not, proponents then have to collect 10,971 signatures by early July for the proposed laws to be put on the ballot.

The health care proposal aims to cover more uninsured residents through steps including increasing the cigarette tax and mandating employers provide health coverage or pay fees.
Supporter Lester Holtzblatt and other members of Congregation Beth El in Sudbury helped gather more than 2,100 signatures.

Holtzblatt said he hopes the volume of signatures delivered to Galvin yesterday -- which supporters place at at least 81,000 -- will help influence lawmakers to keep similar reforms in health care bills from being hashed out in a conference committee.

"Through this grass-roots effort you can see there’s widespread support," Holtzblatt said.
Supporters of measures to create an independent redistricting commission, withdraw Massachusetts National Guard troops from Iraq and create a global federated union said they did not gather enough signatures.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:18 AM

PressofAtlanitcCity.com
County will not allow partner to receive benefits
By TRISTAN SCHWEIGER Staff Writer, (609) 978-2015
Published: Thursday, December 8, 2005
Updated: Thursday, December 8, 2005TOMS RIVER-For 24 years, Lt. Laurel Hester worked as an investigator for the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office.Now Hester is dying of lung cancer, and when she dies, she wants her partner, Stacie Andree, to receive her pension and other government benefits. Thus far, the Ocean County freeholders are not allowing her to do that.

On Wednesday afternoon, Hester addressed the freeholders at their regular meeting to again ask for the right to leave those benefits to her partner. She was joined by Andree and a crowd of supporters who filled the room, a crowd that included gay-rights activists, religious leaders, other officers and ordinary citizens.

"Twenty-four years is a long time in the closet. And were it not for this set of particular circumstances, I would not have to be here to announce my sexuality, because frankly, it's nobody's business," Hester told the freeholders.

Hester, unlike her supporters who stood when they spoke, sat at the microphone. She appeared weaker than she did at a rally on the same issue held the day before Thanksgiving. She said her condition was deteriorating, and, as she addressed the freeholders, frequently stopped to cough.

She told the board that in the past two weeks two other New Jersey counties - Mercer and Union -passed laws extending benefits to domestic partners. And she thanked the crowd who turned out, saying, "You're the ones with courage."

In unison, many responded: "You are."The presence of the supporters gave the meeting an entirely different atmosphere than freeholder meetings generally have in Ocean County. Typically quick and calm proceedings, public comment on Hester's situation took up about an hour and a half and became emotional several times.Many in the crowd were holding large red signs that read: "Ocean County Freeholders. Don't let officer Laurel Hester die like this. Have compassion."

Among those who spoke was Dick Chinery, a former chief investigator for the Prosecutor's Office who was Hester's longtime supervisor. He spoke highly of her dedication to her job over the years, calling her "a wonderful girl."

"Please do something for her. She spent 20-some years protecting the citizens of Ocean County," Chinery said.Hester's case has fueled debate throughout New Jersey over the state's domestic partnership laws, which allow, but do not require, local governments to provide benefits to same-sex couples.

At the time of the November rally, Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay-rights group Garden State Equality, said that Hester's case is important to the debate over gay marriage, arguing that the freeholders' refusal to allow Hester to leave Andree her government benefits shows stronger laws are needed.But at the meeting Wednesday, Goldstein portrayed the issue as one of common decency.

"Don't look at her as lesbian, straight, what have you. Look at her as a woman who could be your daughter," said Goldstein, who at one point got down on his knees before the freeholders to plead for Hester's cause.

After the public session ended, Freeholder Director Joe Vicari said he was sympathetic to Hester's situation. He told her the board was grateful for her decades of service.

"If I had to rate people, Laurel Hester would be at the very, very top," Vicari said.Vicari objected to the characterization by some of Hester's supporters that the county's position was one of prejudice. He added that, "since the day I first heard of this, I anguish over this every single day. It hurts me."

But he said Hester and her supporters should be making their case before state lawmakers.

"It has not been caused by this board of chosen freeholders," Vicari said. "It's been caused by the state Legislature.

"That comment drew boos and angry shouts from the crowd, and several took up the chant, "It's in your power!" After a brief attempt to restore order, Vicari quickly ended the meeting without elaborating further.

Last month, however, Freeholder John C. Bartlett Jr. portrayed the matter as one of county fiscal policy, saying the county wouldn't extend any benefits to employees beyond the ones it is contractually obligated to grant.

Goldstein rejected Vicari's contention that the matter was a state issue as a "grotesque lie." He said his organization is now discussing an economic boycott of Ocean County."We're looking at that very seriously, to hit these people where it hurts," Goldstein said.

To e-mail Tristan Schweiger at The Press:
TSchweiger@pressofac.com

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:13 AM

December 7, 2005
New York Times
By HEATHER TIMMONS

LONDON, Dec. 6 - Asda, Wal-Mart's British subsidiary, has introduced a line of wedding cards and "commitment rings" this week - just in time for the country's legalization of gay civil partnerships.

"Wedding day wishes, Mrs. & Mrs.," reads a pink-toned greeting card. A blue card decorated with two top hats says, "Congratulations, Mr. & Mr." The company will also sell a line of matching gold rings with diamond insets starting at £60 each ($104).

Monday was the first day that same-sex couples were able to apply for a civil partnership. The first gay and lesbian marriages in England will take place on Dec. 21, and a long line of well-known Britons have already said they plan to pledge their troth, including the singers Sir Elton John and George Michael.

"Ever since gay weddings were given the official go-ahead, we've had a number of customers asking if we could introduce gay cards," Ed Watson, an Asda spokesman, said. "With the launch of our new range, we can ensure that our customers can celebrate every marriage - whether it is between him and her, him and him, or her and her," he said.

Critics of Wal-Mart, however, accused the company of hypocrisy, contrasting its marketing of gay wedding cards in Britain with its stricter controls in the United States. Wal-Mart has pulled some mainstream magazines from its shelves and refuses to carry some popular books because of their content, among them "America (The Book)" by Jon Stewart and "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" by George Carlin.

"They want to be all things to all people anywhere but in the United States," said Tracy Sefl, research director for Wal-Mart Watch, an advocacy group based in Washington. "In the United States, they have a conservative, right-leaning business model."

No one from Wal-Mart was available to comment on the issue, Jami Arms, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said, speaking from Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

Asda, Britain's third-largest retailer, was purchased by Wal-Mart in 1999. Since then, however, it has carefully maintained its independence from its parent, London analysts say.

Asda "is a lot more comfortable selling music or books or magazines that Wal-Mart might consider risqué," said Bryan Roberts, an analyst with the London consulting group Planet Retail. "It would be foolish for Asda to exclude any of its customer groups for the sake of a political and moral stance on any issue."

Richard Perks, an analyst with the Mintel International Group, a London research firm, said, "I would like to think that Wal-Mart would recognize that what may be suitable in some countries would not be suitable in others, and that any subsidiary would be allowed to market" as it saw fit.

Some Asda campaigns might seem shocking to Wal-Mart shoppers in the United States. Last year, for example, Asda announced it was "rolling back" the price of condoms in time for the Christmas party season.

"We are trying to illustrate that protection against sexually transmitted infection is easy, even more affordable and accessible," Tony Page, Asda's non-food director, said in a statement at the time. The company's stores will be open late, Mr. Page's statement said, in case customers "unexpectedly get lucky."

It also listed stores by condom sales per square foot. Asda's store in Chesser, a section of Edinburgh, took the top spot.

This October, Asda cut prices on liquor and beer as part of a pre-Christmas promotion. "Our latest round of price cuts will ensure our shoppers don't pay any more than they have to when it comes to stocking up on booze this Christmas," said Mike Regnier, general manager for Asda beer, wines and spirits, in a news release.

The company also added that it has retrained employees to ensure that customers who look younger than 21 are asked for identification. (The legal drinking age in Britain is 18.)

The cultures of Asda and Wal-Mart are "very different," Mr. Watson, the Asda spokesman, said. Then again, he added, the cultures of America and Britain are very different.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

by Michael J. Meade, 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: December 6, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Boxes of petitions to have a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions put to voters have begun arriving at the office of Massachusetts Secretary of State Francis Galvin.

Town clerks across the Commonwealth had until Monday to certify the signatures collected in their communities. The petitions must be handed in to Galvin by Wednesday.

He must then tally up the count and if there are at least 65,825 valid signatures the issue will go to a joint session of the House and Senate where it requires the support of 50 members. The earliest it could go to voters would be in 2008.

Vote On Marriage - an umbrella group made up of the Catholic Church and evangelical groups - said it had collected over 120-thousand signatures almost double the number of voters needed.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the organization that won the landmark court ruling that opened the door for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts said Tuesday that it believes the ballot measure will be certified.

"We will be filing a lawsuit challenging the legality of the measure," GLAD spokesperson Carisa Cunningham told 365Gay.com.

Cunningham said the suit will argue that the question used by Vote On Marriage should never have been approved by the state in the first place.

If GLAD is successful the petitions could be thrown out.

The petitions have been the center of controversy from the beginning.

Last month the legislature heard from people who said they were coerced into signing the petitions. Local newspapers in Massachusetts have also carried reports of fraud.

The committee heard from 10 voters, each of whom said signature gatherers tried to trick them into signing the anti-gay marriage petition.

In each case, the voters said they were asked to sign a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores and were then told to sign a second sheet of paper without being told it was the anti-gay marriage amendment. In some cases they said they were told the second sheet was a "back up" sheet for the wine question.

Vote On Marriage hired a private company, Arno Political Consultants - a firm with ties to Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - to collect the signatures.

More than 6,500 gay and lesbian couples have married in Massachusetts. Recent polls have suggested if the proposed amendment reaches voters it would be rejected.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:30 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 6, 2005 11:00 am ET

(New York City) Prosecutors are opposing efforts to apply the state's marital privilege law to same-sex couples, arguing that a man charged in a school embezzlement scandal can testify against his partner.

Stephen Signorelli, charged in the theft of $11.2 million from the wealthy Roslyn school district on Long Island, has asked a judge to prevent Frank Tassone, his longtime companion and the district's former superintendent, from testifying against him. The Nassau County district attorney's office argued in a response filed Monday that the request should be denied, since New York State does not recognize same-sex civil unions or gay marriages.

That argument "is not intended as a commentary on what the law ought to be, but rather what it is," the filing said.

Prosecutors also contended that marital privilege could not be applied to joint participants of a crime who are trying to hide their activities, The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions.

Signorelli, of Manhattan, is fighting charges that he stole at least $219,000 from the public school district as part of a broader series of schemes.Tassone pleaded guilty this year to stealing $1 million from the district between 1996 and 2002. As part of his plea bargain, he agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, which meant he might have to take the stand in Signorelli's trial.

While Signorelli said in court papers that the two "have been loving partners for 33 years," Tassone's lawyer, Edward Jenks, has described the relationship as a platonic one.

Signorelli's lawyer, Kenneth Weinstein, said the two were in a "spousal relationship in every sense of the word."

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:26 AM

BBC News

A terminally ill man believed to be the first in Britain to "marry" his partner in a civil partnership has died just one day after the ceremony.

Matthew Roche, 46, who had lung cancer, and Christopher Cramp held their ceremony hours after the Civil Partnership Act became law on Monday.

The couple, from Brighton, were given special permission to go ahead before the normal 15-day waiting period.

The ceremony was held at St Barnabas Hospice in Worthing, West Sussex.

About 20 family and friends were at the hospice where Mr Roche had been cared for during the last four weeks of his life.

For most couples in England, the first day they will be allowed to tie the knot is 21 December.
Mr Roche feared that he would not live that long and Mr Cramp applied to the Worthing registrar for special permission for their ceremony to go ahead straight away.

The couple, who have been together seven years, were legally joined at 1100 GMT on Monday.
The hospice said Mr Roche died on Tuesday afternoon.

After the civil partnership, Mr Roche had said: "I really, really needed to get married and we are very lucky indeed to be given the opportunity.

"Chris and I have always wanted to do this - it is just a shame that I have been taken so early."
Mr Cramp said he had mixed feelings about the bitter-sweet occasion.

But he said he was very happy that the couple had managed to reach the point where they could be in a legal partnership.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 5, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Baltimore, Maryland) A proposal to ban gay marriages will be a contentious issue in the 2006 Maryland General Assembly session, but just how big an issue and how much of an impact it will have on next year's election may depend on a circuit court judge in Baltimore.

Gay rights opponents have failed in the past to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, in part because state law already defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Legislative leaders have been able to keep the emotionally charged issue in the background by arguing that there is no need to write into the constitution a ban on something that is already prohibited by law.

But that law has been challenged in Baltimore Circuit Court, and if Judge Brooke M. Murdoch rules it's unconstitutional, opponents of gay rights say that will give them a weapon to use to force the amendment out of committees and to the House and Senate for debate.

The presence of a gay marriage ban on the ballot next November would further complicate an election that is likely to be the most unpredictable in Maryland in decades, with the two parties anticipating close battles for governor and the U.S. Senate and Democrats striving to hold on to their leads of more than 2-to-1 in the state Senate and House of Delegates.

Regardless of what Murdoch does, opponents of gay marriage plan to introduce an amendment that would ban gay marriage as well as civil unions between homosexual couples.

"If the will of the public is heard, I believe that we will not only get the amendment out (of committee), we will pass it and it will be on the ballot so the citizens of Maryland can vote on this most crucial issue," said Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel.

Democratic leaders would prefer not to have a constitutional amendment on the ballot that might become a dominant issue in the campaign, and they are playing down the prospects that an amendment will pass during the 90-day session that begins Jan. 11 -- even if Murdoch should rule the law unconstitutional. Regardless of how she rules, both sides agree her decision will be appealed and the case will eventually be decided by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

"Traditionally, when there is an issue in front of the judiciary, the legislature waits to see how the process turns out before determining whether and for what reason we will overturn the decision of the courts," said House Speaker Michael Busch, D-Anne Arundel.Democrat Brian Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, agreed, saying he would be surprised if there is any major change in gay rights laws at the 2006 legislative session.

But Republican political consultant Kevin Igoe said a ruling by Murdoch that the law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional would have a significant impact on the upcoming session."It would put a lot of folks, mostly Democrats from rural districts, in a very difficult spot," he said.

Republicans already plan to go after Democratic incumbents from southern Maryland and in the moderate-to-conservative districts in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties that Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich carried in the 2002 gubernatorial election. A vote to reject a gay marriage ban -- either in committee or in the full House or Senate -- would undoubtedly be used against some Democratic incumbents by their GOP opponents.

If the gay marriage amendment should wind up on the ballot, Igoe believes conservatives would benefit because of the impact on voter turnout."I think there are more people who do not vote regularly who oppose gay marriage than there are those who strongly support it and do not vote," he said.

In addition to the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, legislators may be confronted by two other gay rights issues in the form of two bills, vetoed by Ehrlich, that were passed by the 2005 General Assembly at the urging of gay rights activists. The bills, which would have applied to both gay and unmarried heterosexual partners, would have allowed couples to make medical decisions for their partners and to add a partner to a deed of property withoutpaying the state transfer tax.

The governor said he supported the goals of both bills. But he objected to the creation of "life partnerships" in the medical decision-making bill "that could lead to the erosion of the sanctity of traditional marriage" and said the tax bill was so broad that people could create sham relationships to avoid paying taxes.The governor offered to work with the legislature to develop a medical decision-making law "that provides assistance for those in need while respecting the uniqueness of traditional marriage under Maryland law." Shareese DeLeaver, a spokeswoman for the governor, said a compromise bill "is still very much a possibility.

"Delegate Richard Madaleno, D-Montgomery, one of the openly gay members of the General Assembly, said overriding the vetoes would be difficult, and no decision has been made by legislative leaders on whether to try. He said four Republicans who supported the medical decision-making bill in the Senate probably would not go against Ehrlich and vote to override his veto.

Even though the two bills were not limited to homosexual couples, opponents portrayed them as gay-rights measures and would, if they were brought up for a veto override, be able to use votes against Democratic incumbents in moderate to conservative districts.Constitutional amendments require approval of three-fifths of the House and Senate members. Derek Walker, spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party, said he does not think there are enough votes in the legislature to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot.Meanwhile, a minister who is one of the key supporters of a constitutional amendment says he intends to run for the General Assembly.

Rev. Rick Bowers, the pastor of Living Stone House of Worship in Pasadena says he will run as a Republican.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:23 AM

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

(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) One of the nation's largest mutual funds says it will vote its shares in ExxonMobil in support of adding sexuality to the company's nondiscrimination policy.
The Vanguard Group holds 149 million shares in ExxonMobil, making it the fourth-largest institutional shareholder.

ExxonMobil is the only U.S. company that has ever rescinded a non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation.

The provision had been available to workers at Mobil. But, in December 1999 Mobil merged with Exxon and under Exxon's direction the policy was abandoned. At the same time, it closed Mobil's domestic partner benefits program to any more employees.

ExxonMobil is also one of only 40 Fortune 500 companies that do not provide nondiscrimination protection for gay and lesbian employees.

"Vanguard is the gold standard for protecting shareholder value," said Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director of Equality Forum, which helped secure the mutual fund company's support.
"After discussions with Equality Forum, Vanguard determined that a supportive workplace for gay and lesbian employees helps maximize shareholder interest," said Lazin. "This decision will influence other mutual funds and positively increase proxy support for sexual orientation nondiscrimination protection."

For seven consecutive years shareholders in ExxonMobil have rejected attempts to include sexual orientation in the company's non-discrimination policy.

At the oil company's annual meeting in May, shareholders voted 29.4 percent in favor of giving LGBT workers protection. It was the highest support the measure has yet received.
The New York City Employees Retirement System, one of the biggest pension funds in the country, has been the major proponent of adding sexual orientation to the ExonMobil non-discrimination policy.

NYCERS currently holds 11.9 million shares worth approximately $446 million in the company.
It is doubtful that Vanguard's shares would be enough to pass the inclusion measure, but the company decision is expected to put pressure on other institutional shareholders to follow suit.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:20 AM

December 6, 2005
New York Times
BY ALAN COWELL

LONDON, Dec. 5 - From Brighton to Birmingham and beyond, gay and lesbian couples began registering Monday for the first ceremonies later this month legally recognizing same-sex unions in Britain.

As a new law permitting what are called civil partnerships came into force, at least 1,200 couples scheduled ceremonies to take place beginning Dec. 19 in Northern Ireland, Dec. 20 in Scotland and Dec. 21 in England and Wales.

"This is an important piece of legislation that gives legal recognition to relationships which until now were invisible in the eyes of the law," said Meg Munn, a government minister.

The Times of London, once the staid voice of the establishment, extended the Births, Marriages and Deaths column in its Court and Social Register pages on Monday to include a new category, Civil Partnerships. In it, two male couples and a female couple announced their intentions.
Some of the first to register were couples in longstanding relationships, like Roger Lockyer, 77, and Percy Steven, 66, of central London.

"Britain has been in the Dark Ages over this, but today we have made the first step into the 21st century," Mr. Steven, a former actor and lecturer, told the Press Association news agency.
The biggest number of registrations, 510, were recorded in Brighton, on the south coast. In a sampling of registrations elsewhere, 140 couples registered in central London, and 5 in Aberdeen, in the north of Scotland.

The law allows same-sex couples in civil partnerships to benefit from some of the same financial benefits as married heterosexual couples, like tax breaks on inherited real estate and pension rights. The ceremony will resemble civil marriages between heterosexuals performed in a registry office.

But some of those registering Monday saw a broader significance. "It is very important to the heterosexual community to realize that there are homosexual couples and give them their due rights," Mr. Lockyer said.

Homosexuality is still a divisive issue within the Anglican church, and soccer crowds have been singled out as sources of homophobic abuse. But more generally, homosexuality seems more accepted than it was a generation ago. The British military lifted a ban on openly gay people five years ago.

Sir Elton John has announced plans to enter into a civil union on Dec. 21 with his longtime partner, David Furnish, a 43-year-old filmmaker, who said in a recent interview with the gay men's life style magazine Attitude: "It is a major, major change. It is one of the defining issues of our times. And I applaud Britain for embracing the diversity of our society."

Across Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have, like Canada, enacted laws legalizing same-sex marriage, but other countries offer gay people forms of partnership with more restricted rights than heterosexual marriage. In 1999, France introduced a civil contract for cohabiting couples irrespective of gender, and Germany has enacted legislation for "life partnerships" for gay people.

Elsewhere, South Africa's highest court ruled last week that prohibitions against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

In the United States, Connecticut followed Vermont last September in recognizing same-sex civil unions, Massachusetts permits same-sex marriages, and California has a broad domestic partnership law. But federal law does not recognize same-sex unions, and many states define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:19 AM

December 06, 2005
Advocate.com

A split Wisconsin senate committee approved a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions, clearing the way for an expected vote by the full body on Tuesday. The Senate Judiciary, Corrections, and Privacy Committee voted 3-2 along party lines with all Republicans supporting the amendment, according to votes tallied Monday. Members sent in their votes by paper ballot, which were collected by the committee chairman for a Monday deadline.

Wisconsin law already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but amendment supporters fear a judge could invalidate the statute and order the state to recognize same-sex marriage, as happened in Massachusetts. Opponents say the amendment would write discrimination into the state constitution and could strip gay couples of any legal recognition, such as health care benefits.

The amendment states, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
The amendment must be approved by consecutive two-year sessions of the legislature before it can go to voters in a statewide referendum. Lawmakers easily approved the amendment under first consideration in 2004, and groups on both sides of the debate acknowledge they are likely to approve it again. The amendment is expected to appear on the November ballot. (AP)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:16 AM

by Peter Moore, 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: December 5, 2005 12:01 am ET

(London) Britain's civil partnership law is effective today, but not all gays are cheering.
Called "marriage lite" it gives same-sex couples an opportunity to register their partnerships and receive some of the same benefits accorded married couples including pension, immigration, and property rights.

As of today same-sex couples can give formal notice of their intent to register their partnership. This is followed by a waiting period. The first gay and lesbian couples will be able to tie the knot on December 19 in Northern Ireland, the 20th in Scotland and on December 21 in England.
Most of the European Union states already have varying forms civil unions. Only The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain in the EU permit same-sex marriage. Elsewhere, Canada and the US state of Massachusetts allow gay marriage. Last week the highest court in South Africa gave the government one year to pass a marriage equality law.

"The legalization of same-sex civil partnerships is a major milestone in the struggle for lesbian and gay rights in the UK," said Brett Lock of the LGBT human rights group OutRage.

But, Lock said the law isn't enough.

"While there is much cause for celebration as gay couples are granted the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual friends, it is not yet true equality.

"Only same-sex marriage is genuine equality," said Lock. "The ban on same-sex civil marriage defines lesbian and gay couples as second-class citizens.

In a civil partnership, the couple sign documents in an exclusively civil procedure and partners do not have to exchange a spoken vow as in a marriage.

Britain's Liberal Judaism is the only faith in the UK to allow religious ceremonies for same-sex couples. Last week it announced it would create a special liturgy for gay couples.

Hundreds of gay and lesbian couple are preparing to enter into civil partnerships. The most famous is rocker Elton John and his longtime partner David Furnish.

They will exchange vows on December 21, the first day they are legally entitled to do so in England, in what the singer says will be a small private affair.

Last week singer George Michael announced he will tie the knot with longtime partner Kenny Goss. They say they have not yet chosen a date.

The advent of civil partnerships has sparked a spending frenzy by same-sex couples.

Companies that specialize in helping couples tie the knot say that from early indications gay and lesbian couples match their heterosexual counterparts in lavish affairs. That would mean laying out an average of $25,000 for rings, tuxedos, caterers and reception halls, and honeymoons.
As many as 40,000 same-sex couples are predicted to 'get hitched' this year alone.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:13 AM

by Mark Worrall, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: December 5, 2005 12:01 am ET

(San Francisco, California) A group trying to get a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage put to voters in California concedes it won't make it on the June 2006 ballot and may not make it in November.

The amendment would not only prevent gay marriages but also void the state's landmark domestic partner registry and all benefits for same-sex couples.

Randy Thomasson, the president of Campaign for Children and Families, tells a chain of suburban newspapers that the gathering of names on petitions has been slow.

"Whether it be November 2006 or sometime in 2008, it doesn't matter," he told the MediaNews Group which operates some 30 small dailies in California.

"Ultimately, two-thirds of Californians want marriage protected for one man and one woman ... and in every state that has had a marriage amendment on the ballot, it has passed."
Another group collecting names for a second ballot measure also says it has not collected as many signatures as it had hoped.

Andy Pugno, an attorney for ProtectMarriage says last month's special election was a "distraction" but he said he was confident the group would meet the Dec. 27 deadline for the June ballot. If not, he said, they will aim for an April 13 deadline to make November's ballot.
Both groups say they are far behind LGBT rights group Equality California in fundraising and organization.

EQCA last week announced it had hired five new field organizers and is opening additional offices in Palm Springs and San Diego. It already has offices in San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles.

California has the largest LGBT population in the nation.

Lawsuits brought by same-sex couples wishing to marry are slowly working their way to state Supreme Court.

From February 12 to March 11, 2004, the City of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Mayor Gavin Newsom determined that the state Constitution's guarantees of equality and due process required him to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
The California Supreme Court eventually ruled that Newsom did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples before the state courts had reviewed the constitutionality of the law limiting licenses to different-sex couples only, and invalidated the marriages of over 4,000 same-sex couples.

In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation that would have allowed same-sex marriage in California.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:11 AM

by Rachel La Corte, Associated Press
Posted: December 4, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Portland, Oregon) The debate over gay marriage has social conservatives decrying the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, but a nationally renowned marriage expert argues the institution was thrown into chaos long ago.

Once people started eschewing marriage as a business proposition and instead partnered up based on something as fleeting as love, all convention was thrown out the window, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage."

"Staying together 'til death do us part' is a bigger challenge than any generation ever had to face," she said. "The fact remains that you're never going to get back to a situation where you can assume every adult is going to spend the majority of their life in marriage."

The author of five books, including "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap," teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia. Coontz, 61, said she has spent years "trying to get past our 'Leave it to Beaver' mythology about what the traditional family was."

And there are plenty of new models to pick from — couples who choose not to have children, couples who choose cohabitation over marriage, unwed mothers, stepfamilies, and gay couples who want to marry and have children.

Proponents and opponents of gay marriage are anxiously awaiting a state Supreme Court ruling on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry in Washington State.

"People may have their own opinions about the morality of homosexuality," Coontz said. "As a historian, I can only say: Heterosexuals revolutionized marriage. Gay and lesbian marriages, there is no evidence that they are going to make marriage worse. They are some of the few people clamoring to enter marriage."

But social conservatives argue that gay marriage is an affront to traditional marriage.
"Marriage is one man and one woman," said Carrie Gordon Earll, spokeswoman for Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colo. "It's defined that way by culture, by law, by history, by tradition."

Gordon Earll contends that if gay marriage is allowed by law, that opens the door for polygamists and others.

"If you take it out of the context of one man and one woman, it becomes any combination that people want it to be," she said. "Then if it becomes everything, it becomes nothing. That's a pretty radical social change to be advocating."

But Coontz said that as gender roles became more equal in heterosexual marriage, and couples decided to put off or completely forgo children, the door opened for gays and lesbians.
"Kids became a choice, they weren't essential to the economic institution of marriage," she said. "As soon as that happened, gays and lesbians could say 'why can't we be married?'"

In the 1950s, married couples represented 80 percent of all households, Coontz said. By the early 21st century, they were only 50 percent of households. The percentage of households comprised of married couples with children was down to 24 percent, from almost 40 percent a decade or so earlier. For the first time ever, there are more single-person households than married couples with children.

Coontz said the numbers aren't surprising.

"The divorce rate has been rising ever since we created the radical idea that marriages should be good for people," she said.

"When a marriage works, it works better than ever before in history. We get more out of it and our kids get more out of it," Coontz said. "But when it doesn't work, it feels less bearable, it feels more stressful."

Coontz is also director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a national organization that serves as a think tank on family issues and trends. She started studying the dynamics of families 30 years ago, when she set out to write a textbook on the history of women but had a hard time finding anyplace in society where women weren't outnumbered by men.

"Before 1975, women weren't in equal numbers in college and workplaces. I wanted to find a place where men and women were around in equal number, and a-ha, there's the family," she said.

What she found was that marriage has changed more over the past three decades than in the last 3,000 years, and that women led the evolution.

Many changes happened starting in the 1970s, including the dissolution of "head and master" laws in many states that gave the husband final say over where the family lived and other household decisions, including whether women could get their own credit cards and whether they could work outside the home. Add in more women going to college, getting jobs and using contraception, and the rules of marriage were turned upside down.

"The woman's movement did destabilize marriage," Coontz said. "It gave women the means and the courage to say I won't marry you, I won't stay with you because I'm dependent on you."
But Coontz said the divorce rate has stabilized as men have adjusted to the independence of their potential spouses.

"More and more men, as well as women, say they want an equal marriage," she said.
Even as more people are delaying marriage, Coontz said she's "cautiously optimistic" about the future of matrimony.

"I think that both as a society and in people's personal lives, marriage will no longer be the main thing that organizes life," she said.

But that doesn't mean people still won't dream of their wedding day.

"In America, it remains the highest expression of commitment that they can imagine making," she said. "It is valued more highly as a quality relationship than it was in the past."

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:09 AM

Little movement on both sides of state debate
By JOSH RICHMAN/MediaNews GroupDaily Democrat

Same-sex marriage advocates visibly stepped up their organizing last week, but there's little sign of forward movement among those seeking to constitutionally ban gay matrimony.
Equality California last week announced it had added five new field organizers around the state, and is seeking space for two new Southern California offices. The pro-gay marriage group continues reaching out to possible allies - it forged bonds with groups including the United Farm Workers and the NAACP in 2005 - and hired a well-known campaign consulting firm months ago.

But Campaign for Children and Families founder and president Randy Thomasson - among proponents of a measure to amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage and roll back existing domestic-partnership rights - said Friday there's no chance of qualifying his measure for the June 2006 ballot, and November might be out of reach as well.

"Whether it be November 2006 or sometime in 2008, it doesn't matter," he said. "Ultimately, two-thirds of Californians want marriage protected for one man and one woman ... and in every state that has had a marriage amendment on the ballot, it has passed."

But that requires getting onto the ballot in the first place, and Thomasson said his fund-raising is nowhere near the $1 million or more he'd need to gather the 600,000 valid registered-voter signatures required.

Thomasson dismissed Equality California's "major strategic expansion" as nothing more than "a fund-raising gimmick ... They want more homosexual marriage supporters to give them money."

Another conservative committee - ProtectMarriage.com, a project of California Renewal - has advanced another ballot measure for a constitutional ban.

"We're actually collecting petitions on the first version of the measure that was cleared for circulation in July, so the deadline is Dec. 27," said Andy Pugno, that group's attorney, Friday. "We got off to a slow start on this with the distraction of the special election, which diverted the effort of many volunteers ... So we're playing catch-up."

"Now we're drowning in petitions. We've been focusing on getting petitions out to people, and now they're just starting to come back in, and we're trying to sort and count them as soon as possible," he said.

It's too early to say whether the Dec. 27 deadline will be met, he said; even if it is, that'll qualify the measure for November. To get it on June's ballot would've required submitting the petitions right around now, he said.

If they miss the Dec. 27 deadline, however, another version of the same measure is circulating with an April 13 deadline - still soon enough to make November's ballot.

Pugno acknowledged fund-raising has been modest.

"We've been overwhelmed with volunteers offering their time, but it's been hard to raise the funds to keep those volunteers equipped with the supply of petitions needed,"he said.
Equality California this year hired the Santa Monica campaign consulting firm of Zimmerman and Markman, which has run successful progressive California ballot measure campaigns such as those for medical marijuana, drug treatment instead of incarceration and funding for mental health as well as representing MoveOn.org during last year's presidential campaign.

As that firm develops a campaign advertising strategy, Equality California is continuing its media outreach, door-to-door voter identification projects, town hall meetings and visits to other organizations across the state, executive director Geoff Kors said.

"This is going to be a very expensive, if not the most expensive, campaign our community has ever faced," Kors predicted. "It's hard to envision any statewide campaign in California not being in the $10 million to $15 million range, with the cost of television."

Kors said he'd hope to see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "come out strongly against" the measures as a visible campaign force, much as Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1978 - after his two terms as governor ended and before his election as president - against a measure which would've banned gays and lesbians from working as public school teachers.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:07 AM

Sun Dec 4, 4:24 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Roy Peterson lost his home as well as his boyfriend when Rick died more than a decade ago in the United States where the gay couple's 13-year relationship was not recognised by law.

Now living in London, Peterson, 53, says he does not want to risk suffering the same double tragedy of losing a long-term lover and all the legal rights such as inheritance that are taken for granted by married heterosexual couples.

So he and current partner Paul, 49, decided to become one of the first same-sex couples to tie the knot under a historic new British law that takes effect on Monday, enabling gay or lesbian couples effectively to marry.

Tens of thousands of people are expected to sign so-called civil partnerships over the next five years alone, giving them basically the same rights and privileges as their married, male-female counterparts.

The first ceremonies will take place on December 19 in Northern Ireland, December 20 in Scotland and December 21 in England and Wales.

Peterson, an office manager for the gay rights group Stonewall, said he and Paul, a writer, would exchange vows at 1000 GMT on December 21 in Croydon, south London.
"I like to be making history, making changes for everybody else to be able to benefit from," Peterson told AFP.

The US national understands all too well the importance of a legally enforceable relationship.
In 1994, he was living in Florida when his previous partner died of HIV.

"His parents called me their son and his family were very nice to me. Then as soon as he died things turned around the other way. I was pushed out of the house, the locks were changed. There was nothing I could do," Peterson said.

He managed to pick his life up, meeting Paul, a Briton whose surname he did not wish to reveal. The couple eventually moved to London.

They were delighted when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was passed.

"I wanted to do it as soon as possible," said Peterson.

Some gay partners will celebrate their big day with the same colour and extravagance as many heterosexual marriages.

Others like Peterson are opting for a more low-key affair, noting that they have already been together for years and the civil partnership is more about providing security than proving their love.

Peterson said he will simply sign the legal papers at the register office with Paul and go to work, possibly stopping for lunch on the way.

Brighton, Britain's self-styled "gay capital" on the south coast, promises a much more flamboyant send-off.

The seaside resort will share the honour of hosting England's first civil partnership ceremonies with Westminster in London at 0800 GMT on December 21.

Among two gay couples and one lesbian duo lined up to take the plunge is Roger Lewis, 55, who works as a call advisor for Sussex Police, and his partner Keith Willmott-Goodall, 63.
"Even though we have been together for 14 years, we want to show our commitment to each other," Lewis told AFP.

He also welcomed the ability finally to have rights regarding property, pensions and bereavement. In addition, the new law enables a gay partner to be recognised as the next of kin if the other is admitted to hospital.

The pair along with the Reverend Debbie Gaston and her partner Elaine Cook as well as Gino Meriano and his boyfriend Mike Ullett will "marry" in front of a registrar and two witnesses per couple in Brighton.

The newly-weds will then head to three separate celebrations at the town's Hilton Metropole hotel, where friends and relatives will be waiting.

Asked what he thought married life would be like, Willmott-Goodall, who is retired, said: "I think we will be the same together, nagging each other as we have done for the past 14 years."
Britain is the fifth country to introduce legislation allowing gay unions after Belgium, Canada, Spain and the Netherlands.

On Thursday, South Africa indicated it would follow suit.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:05 AM

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sun Dec 4, 5:32 AM ET

In more than one sense, Brian Rice and Jason Kelliher are pioneers. They were among the first same-sex partners in the nation to marry legally — last year in barrier-breaking Massachusetts — and now are among the few such couples to forgo their much-prized rights by moving to another state.

Their new home, Connecticut, is among the most liberal on the issue; its legislature has approved civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to gay couples. But that option doesn't tempt Rice and Kelliher.

"We've already reached the pinnacle of what a couple can hope for — a marriage license," said Rice, a lawyer. "Civil union is a second-class citizenship.

... We don't want to take a step backward."

Yet Rice and Kelliher know that if they venture to any other state — except back to Massachusetts — their status wouldn't improve. While a few states have recognized same-sex couples, many more are strengthening bans on gay marriage. Conservatives in some places — including Michigan and Ohio — are now taking aim at existing domestic-partner benefit policies.
"There are lots of families in states where it's harder to be a strong family, where the state does everything it can to weaken you," said David Buckel, an attorney overseeing marriage issues for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "It's challenging, it's discouraging, at some points it's enraging."

Rice, 27, and Kelliher, 29, moved from Boston in August 2004 because of a job offer for Rice in Stamford, Conn. Kelliher now works for an apartment management company, and qualifies for domestic-partner health benefits from Rice's law firm.

They initially hoped Connecticut would recognize their marriage, but the state decided otherwise. They can't file joint state tax returns, as they could have in Massachusetts, and worry that they need to execute a will because Connecticut wouldn't consider the survivor a spouse in the event one of them died.

"There are very few attorneys who specialize in these issues, and the law is very unsettled," Rice said. "If you're moving from state to state, or traveling, protections you had in one state may not be available in another."

Despite the uncertainties, the couple sense they are better off in New England than in the dozens of other states that have explicitly outlawed gay marriage.

Many have enshrined such bans in their constitutions; several also forbid civil unions.

"We're fortunate not to be facing some of the challenges couples are facing elsewhere," Rice said.
Among those challenges:

_In Michigan, Republican Attorney General Mike Cox and several conservative groups are arguing in court that the gay-marriage ban approved by voters in 2004 should be interpreted as barring local governments and public universities from providing health insurance to partners of gay workers.

_In Nebraska, state officials are trying to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriages that was struck down by a federal judge and is considered by gay-rights advocates to be the harshest such ban in the nation.

Approved with 70 percent support in 2000, the constitutional amendment bars virtually any legal protections for same-sex couples, including shared health benefits for gays employed by the state. The amendment "made gay people into political outcasts," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Tamara Lange.

_In Ohio, conservatives who helped win passage of a 2004 ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions are now suing to stop a state university from offering health insurance to employees' same-sex partners.

That Miami University program "violates state law by creating a legal status for same-sex couples designed to mimic marriage," said lawyer Jeff Shafer of the Alliance Defense Fund. "Granting special legal status to newfangled nonmarital relationships is a state policy option rejected by the voters."

Lambda Legal lawyer Camilla Taylor said the lawsuit, if successful, would validate discrimination. "I'm sure gay and lesbian families are wondering if Ohio is the right state for them to live in," she said.

_In New Jersey, one of a handful of states with a domestic partnership law, activists were dismayed by two recent cases dramatizing the law's limitations. In one case, Ocean County officials refused to approve the transfer of death benefits to the lesbian partner of a cancer-stricken law enforcement officer, Lt. Laurel Hester. In another case, also involving lesbians who registered as domestic partners, 66-year-old Betty Jordan is suing the state because of a ruling that she is not entitled to the couple's home and cars after her partner's death in July.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality and one of New Jersey's leading gay activists, said he was optimistic despite the two cases.

"The Hester case proves how progressive the state is," he said. "The outrage from the entire state is unbelievable — it brings home to legislators how narrow and insufficient the domestic partnership law is."

Some other recent developments have heartened gay activists. In Alaska — one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage — the state Supreme Court ruled in October it was unconstitutional to deny benefits to same-sex partners of public employees. And the mayor of Salt Lake City, capital of conservative Utah, signed an executive order in September extending health benefits to city workers' domestic partners.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

Sat Dec 3,10:49 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Although it is one of the most divisive issues of the day, homosexual marriages and other forms of same-sex partnerships are gaining acceptance around the world.

Britain this month will become the fifth country to allow gay 'marriages' on roughly the same basis as heterosexual marriages.

The Netherlands was the first nation to celebrate gay marriages in April 2001, followed by Belgium in January, 2003, Canada in June and Spain in July.

In the United States, Massachusetts recognizes gay marriage and the California senate approved it before the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Canada legalized gay marriages in June and has already discovered one anomaly after a woman sued for divorce on the grounds of adultery between her husband and another man. A Vancouver court defined adultery as taking place only between men and women.

Gay marriages have thrown up other legal conundrums, including establishing paternity of a child born in a lesbian wedlock.

Homosexual marriage in Spain, once one of the world's most staunchly Roman Catholic nations, has called down fulminations from the Vatican, but appears to be supported by a majority of Spaniards, whether straight or gay.

In Britain, the establishment Church of England has refused to celebrate same-sex unions, even though the gay marriage law comes into effect on Monday.

In a first for Africa, South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages on Thursday and ordered parliament to change "intolerant" laws within a year.

At a level lower than marriage, many countries recognize same-sex civil unions, with no presumption of sexual involvement, for tax and inheritance purposes.

Denmark was the first country to allow "registered partnerships" or civil unions followed by the other main Nordic nations. France recognizes a union between any two adults, whether man or woman, in a Pact of Civil Solidarity (PACS). Portugal has had a similar measure on the books since 2001, but Prime Minister Jose Socrates has said his government will not consider gay marriage.

In the United States also, Vermont and Connecticut recognize same-sex civil unions, while Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and California allow couples living together the same rights as married couples.

But many countries reject any kind of union between homosexuals, usually on religious grounds
Australia's conservative government passed legislation last year that defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others."

In India, homosexuality is an offense punishable by up to life in prison, and there is no discussion of the issue. Same-sex marriages are prohibited in China and Russia.

Japan also does not allow gay marriages and prohibits child adoption by homosexuals, although gays can obtain some inheritance and other family rights.

Thailand has a liberal attitude toward homosexuality, but not to gay marriage. In other countries, such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it is simply out of the question.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:00 AM

Parliament Given One Year to Amend Law
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, December 2, 2005; A16
JOHANNESBURG, Dec. 1 -- South Africa's highest court on Thursday recognized the marriage of two Pretoria women and gave Parliament a year to extend legal marital rights to all same-sex couples.

The ruling, greeted with jubilation by gay men and lesbians but with frustration by some church leaders, will make South Africa the first country to allow marriages between gay people on a continent where homosexual activity is widely condemned and often outlawed.

Only four countries in the world -- the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada -- currently allow same-sex marriages nationwide. Several others, mostly in Europe, recognize civil unions between gay partners.

"I'm ecstatic," said Marie Fourie, 54, speaking by phone from Pretoria after the ruling by South Africa's Constitutional Court. "It is wonderful for the gay society."

Fourie married Cecelia Bonthuys, 44, on Dec. 11, 2004, a decade after they began living together and several weeks after they won the right to wed from the nation's second-highest court. But after the ceremony, officials in the government's Department of Home Affairs refused to recognize their union and appealed the decision to the Constitutional Court, the nation's highest.
That appeal resulted in Thursday's 111-page opinion giving the government a year to begin treating such unions in the same way as those between men and women.

Fourie predicted the change would lead to declines in what many gay leaders said was persistent discrimination, while also giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, such as the right to open joint bank accounts and visit each other as family members in hospitals.
"There's always remarks," said Fourie, who recalled often being addressed by a slur in the Afrikaans language for gay men and lesbians. "You learn to live with it. But after today, I think they will swallow all that."

The court's judges unanimously agreed that South Africa's 1996 constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, guarantees the right of gay men and lesbians to marry. One justice, in a limited dissent, argued that the law should be overturned immediately rather than within a year.

That delay upset some activists, but both supporters and opponents of the ruling agreed there would be no way for Parliament to avoid approving the required amendments to the law.
"We have to accept that," said Efrem Tresoldi, a spokesman for the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference, speaking from Pretoria. He added that the church would continue to lobby against same-sex marriages on moral grounds.

"The church respects that people have certain sexual orientations, but we will never accept speaking in the same breath of same-sex unions and heterosexual marriage," Tresoldi said.
Word of the ruling raced through the nation's tight-knit community of gay rights activists, who saw the case as crucial to curbing discrimination. One serious abuse, they said, is the rape of lesbians and even some gay men in a misguided effort to change their sexual orientation.

"It's really, really difficult to be black and a lesbian in South Africa," said Thuli Madi, director of Behind the Mask, a Web-based magazine focused on gay life and issues. "As a woman, you are constantly harassed by the males in your community."

Elsewhere in Africa, attitudes are even more harsh. Gay and lesbian sex is illegal on most of the continent, with the death penalty a possibility in some cases. Many religious and political leaders call homosexuality un-African.

In Nigeria, opposition to same-sex marriage is so passionate that Anglican leaders have broken off relations with their counterparts in Canada over the issue. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said last year that homosexuality was "unbiblical, unnatural and definitely un-African."

On Thursday, some South African religious leaders criticized the ruling, but reaction was generally muted. The South African Council of Churches said it provoked such diverse reactions that the body was unlikely to have a unified position.

Ray McCauley, a well-known pastor, said he believed most South Africans did not agree with the decision.

"It is a sad day for South Africa when the very bedrock foundation of society, the family, is redefined by a court," McCauley said, according to the South African Press Association. "This ruling totally undermines marriage as we know it and the cherished formation of healthy, loving families."

No law in South Africa has prohibited gay men and lesbians from holding weddings and living as spouses. Many have signed contractual agreements stipulating joint ownership of property or distribution of assets after death.

But they still run into barriers when seeking to open joint checking accounts or visit each other in hospitals. More broadly, activists said, the prohibition against marriage made them second-class citizens.

"I'm not really sure I want to get married," said Glenn de Swardt of the Triangle Project, a gay and lesbian rights group in Cape Town, speaking by phone. "We want it because it will give us an equal opportunity. Whether I want to access that choice is a different thing."

The romance between Fourie, a carpet cleaner, and Bonthuys, a nurse, began after the two neighbors each discovered the other was a lesbian, Fourie said. They bought a house together and lived as a couple, deciding to have a wedding only after the first ruling, in November 2004.
They exchanged vows in the church of Andre Muller, a gay pastor driven from the Dutch Reformed Church.

"In the past, gay people have always been ridiculed, belittled," Muller said from Pretoria. "Now that this ruling has come, they are on an equal footing. Justice has been done.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:58 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 3, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Washington) In more than one sense, Brian Rice and Jason Kelliher are pioneers. They were among the first same-sex partners in the nation to marry legally - last year in barrier-breaking Massachusetts - and now are among the few such couples to forgo their much-prized rights by moving to another state.

Their new home, Connecticut, is among the most liberal on the issue; its legislature has approved civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to gay couples. But that option doesn't tempt Rice and Kelliher.

"We've already reached the pinnacle of what a couple can hope for - a marriage license," said Rice, a lawyer. "Civil union is a second-class citizenship. ... We don't want to take a step backward."

Yet Rice and Kelliher know that if they venture to any other state - except back to Massachusetts - their status wouldn't improve. While a few states have recognized same-sex couples, many more are strengthening bans on gay marriage. Conservatives in some places - including Michigan and Ohio - are now taking aim at existing domestic-partner benefit policies.
"There are lots of families in states where it's harder to be a strong family, where the state does everything it can to weaken you," said David Buckel, an attorney overseeing marriage issues for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "It's challenging, it's discouraging, at some points it's enraging."

Rice, 27, and Kelliher, 29, moved from Boston in August 2004 because of a job offer for Rice in Stamford, Conn. Kelliher now works for an apartment management company, and qualifies for domestic-partner health benefits from Rice's law firm.

They initially hoped Connecticut would recognize their marriage, but the state decided otherwise. They can't file joint state tax returns, as they could have in Massachusetts, and worry that they need to execute a will because Connecticut wouldn't consider the survivor a spouse in the event one of them died.

"There are very few attorneys who specialize in these issues, and the law is very unsettled," Rice said. "If you're moving from state to state, or traveling, protections you had in one state may not be available in another."

Despite the uncertainties, the couple sense they are better off in New England than in the dozens of other states that have explicitly outlawed gay marriage. Many have enshrined such bans in their constitutions; several also forbid civil unions.

"We're fortunate not to be facing some of the challenges couples are facing elsewhere," Rice said.

Among those challenges:

-In Michigan, Republican Attorney General Mike Cox and several conservative groups are arguing in court that the gay-marriage ban approved by voters in 2004 should be interpreted as barring local governments and public universities from providing health insurance to partners of gay workers.

-In Nebraska, state officials are trying to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriages that was struck down by a federal judge and is considered by gay-rights advocates to be the harshest such ban in the nation. Approved with 70 percent support in 2000, the constitutional amendment bars virtually any legal protections for same-sex couples, including shared health benefits for gays employed by the state. The amendment "made gay people into political outcasts," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Tamara Lange.

-In Ohio, conservatives who helped win passage of a 2004 ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions are now suing to stop a state university from offering health insurance to employees' same-sex partners.

That Miami University program "violates state law by creating a legal status for same-sex couples designed to mimic marriage," said lawyer Jeff Shafer of the Alliance Defense Fund. "Granting special legal status to newfangled nonmarital relationships is a state policy option rejected by the voters."

Lambda Legal lawyer Camilla Taylor said the lawsuit, if successful, would validate discrimination. "I'm sure gay and lesbian families are wondering if Ohio is the right state for them to live in," she said.

-In New Jersey, one of a handful of states with a domestic partnership law, activists were dismayed by two recent cases dramatizing the law's limitations. In one case, Ocean County officials refused to approve the transfer of death benefits to the lesbian partner of a cancer-stricken law enforcement officer, Lt. Laurel Hester. In another case, also involving lesbians who registered as domestic partners, 66-year-old Betty Jordan is suing the state because of a ruling that she is not entitled to the couple's home and cars after her partner's death in July.
Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality and one of New Jersey's leading gay activists, said he was optimistic despite the two cases.

"The Hester case proves how progressive the state is," he said. "The outrage from the entire state is unbelievable - it brings home to legislators how narrow and insufficient the domestic partnership law is."

Some other recent developments have heartened gay activists. In Alaska - one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage - the state Supreme Court ruled in October it was unconstitutional to deny benefits to same-sex partners of public employees. And the mayor of Salt Lake City, capital of conservative Utah, signed an executive order in September extending health benefits to city workers' domestic partners.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 2, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) Legislation before the New Jersey Senate would expand the state's domestic partner law to give same-sex couples the same rights in inheritance and funeral arrangements as married couples already have.

Gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey can register their relationships under a law signed by Gov. James McGreevey last year just months before he came out and announced he was resigning from office.

The law gave same-sex couples the right to collect the public pensions of deceased partners, guaranteed hospital visitation during illnesses, and qualify to receive health benefits in a partner's name.

But, it did not include the right to make funeral arrangements for their partners. Nor did it ensure rights to their partners' estates. Both are automatic for married couples.

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill to correct the inequity. The bill now goes to the Senate floor. A similar bill is also before the Assembly, where a committee approved it in March.

Under the bill a couple would have to be registered under the domestic partnership law for it to be legal.

More than 3,680 couples have registered since the law took effect last July.

The new legislation was hailed by LGBT rights groups in the state but they said they are still hoping for a court ruling allowing them to marry.

The issue of same-sex marriage is currently before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Seven same-sex couples filed suit in 2002 for the right to marry.

In June, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same-sex marriage. The court, in a split decision, said that it is up to the legislature to change marriage laws if same-sex couples are to wed in the Garden State.

Lambda Legal, which represents the couples, immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court. The court is expected to hear arguments in the case next year.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 3:31 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 2, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Tahlequah, Oklahoma) Three justices of the Cherokee Nation's highest court could rule as early as next week in the case of a lesbian couple seeking to have their marriage recognized.

Dawn McKinley and Kathy Reynolds vows in May 2004 after the tribe gave them a marriage license without protest. But their efforts to have their marriage recognized has been stymied.
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.

In August, a group of elected tribal councilors filed a new court challenge. The couple has asked the court to throw out the lawsuit

A decision in the case had been expected this week, but it now appears the court is divided on whether to recognize the marriage.

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

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 3:29 PM

by John Hanna, Associated Press
Posted: December 2, 2005 8:00 pm ET

(Topeka, Kansas) Decrying continued attacks on courts nationwide, the leader of the Kansas judiciary said Friday the rhetoric could undermine public confidence in the legal system and some of the talk comes from "people who ought to know better."

Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland said people accuse judges and appellate courts throughout the nation of being "activists" when they don't like rulings in high-profile cases.
She cited a 2003 ruling by Massachusetts' highest court, striking down a state ban on gay marriage, and court decisions that allowed doctors in Florida to remove a feeding tube from Terry Schiavo earlier this year.

But McFarland said courts aren't supposed to take polls or consult public opinions in ruling on the law, and other justices said their duty is to uphold the rule of law, not do what's popular.
"Judges should not put their fingers up and see which way the wind is blowing," McFarland said. "That's at the heart of judicial independence."

McFarland said courts have always faced some criticism but, "You're getting some wild statements from national leaders, and that's something we haven't had."

"Unfortunately, we're in a time where people who are in some very responsible positions and who shouldn't be in the category of extremists are stating extreme views," McFarland said. "We've got some people who ought to know better making irresponsible statements."

McFarland spoke during a workshop for reporters, editors and judges sponsored by the National Center for Courts and Media. She and the other six justices participated in a question-and-answer session.

She and other justices wouldn't comment on pending cases or on legislative proposals to rein in the judiciary that followed Kansas Supreme Court rulings earlier this year forcing lawmakers to increase spending on public schools.

Some legislators believed the court overstepped its authority because it told the Legislature specifically how much to spend to meet its constitutional mandate on school funding.

"We don't live in a vacuum. We all have our personal opinions," said Justice Eric Rosen. "But our duty and obligation is to the law."

McFarland said people were upset with the Massachusetts decision because it overturned existing law. But people were upset in the Schiavo case because the courts wouldn't write new law to save her life as she lay in a vegetative state, McFarland said.

"Courts have to have the respect of the vast majority of the public, that if they have a problem, they'll get a fair deal," McFarland said.

Justices Carol Beier and Marla Luckert worried that many Americans aren't well-educated about the courts and how they work. Luckert noted that Kansas judges are encouraged to speak to community groups and high school students.

"The educational process has to be intensified," Luckert said.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:33 AM

by Peter Hacker, 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: December 2, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Canberra) The government of Australia's Capital Territory has announced it will bring in legislation to create civil unions. The decision was hailed by LGBT civil rights groups and criticized by the federal government.

The Territory's Chief Minister said the bill would grant a "basic social and legal right" to couples whose relationships were not recognized under federal law.

It would give partners in same-sex relationships the right to inherit and consent to medical treatment for partners.

The bill is based on New Zealand's civil unions law which came into force in April, and similar to one coming into effect in Britain later this month and other civil union laws in Europe.
LGBT rights groups praised the territorial government for its decision.

"Fair minded Australians recognize the value to the community of all committed loving relationships and that these relationships should have the support of families, community and government," said Australian Marriage Equality spokesperson Malcolm McPherson.
If passed the legislation would be the most wide-ranging for gay couples in Australia.

In 2003, Tasmania granted gay couples the right to register their partnerships but carries no legal weight.

Same-sex marriage is illegal in Australia. The federal government passed legislation last year defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The gay rights group Coalition for Equality called on the federal government to repeal the law and recognize same-sex couples.

"It's now time for federal law to catch up with local and international law, and most importantly, public opinion," said spokesperson Kelly Pilgrim-Byrne.

Same-sex marriage currently is legal in only four countries, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada. On Thursday South African's highest court gave the government one year to bring in legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:31 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 2, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(Gainesville, Florida) The University of Florida's gay and lesbian employees will receive health insurance benefits for their domestic partners under a measure approved Friday by the school's Board of Trustees.

The vote was 12-1 making UF the state's only public university to approve such a policy, which also covers partners of unmarried straight couples. Married employees have long been able to insure their spouses.

UF President Bernie Machen said he thought the measure would be important for both recruiting and keeping faculty members."This is not just about the people who need this benefit. This is also about people who consider the benefit a statement of the climate of the campus where they are going to work," Machen said.

Machen said two faculty members left Florida because it did not have such a policy.Texas businessman Al Warrington, the only trustee to vote against the proposal, called it "immoral, unethical and clearly non-scriptural. It's an abomination.

"Warrington, a huge donor to the school, said plans to use University of Florida Foundation funds to pay for the program, estimated to cost between $500,000 to $1 million a year, could cut contributions to the school.

"As one donor, I would be offended if my money went to fund the program," Warrington said. The university's school of business is named after him."I think it could be a real negative. It is for me and it could be for others and I am a very significant donor.

"Kyle Cavanaugh, UF's vice president of human resources who started similar programs at Rice and Vanderbilt universities, said about 300 universities and colleges nationally offer such benefits. Those wanting to participate in the program, which begins Feb. 1, will have to sign an affidavit requesting the benefit and be able to prove they are in a committed relationship. Like married couples, they will have to pay a portion of the premium.

"Primarily, the issue is one of national competitiveness," he said. "We are trying to be as competitive as possible on the national scene."

A similar measure was tabled by the trustees in June 2003, said Steve Orlando, a university spokesman.

At Friday's meeting, there was no mention of a letter by state Rep. Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, who asked the trustees to turn down the proposal. Cretul did not attend the meeting.

Cretul plans to introduce a bill prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for extending benefits to domestic partners."This proposed change is very troubling to me, many of my colleagues in the Legislature, and to the vast majority of taxpayers in the state of Florida," his letter said.

An official with a national gay rights group applauded the vote.

"It's wonderful to see the University of Florida to take a leadership role, stepping out and doing the right thing," said Karen Doering, regional counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in Tampa.

"This will help them attract and retain the best candidates and the best and brightest students," she said.

About 295 colleges and universities offer domestic partner benefits, but approximately half are private institutions - including the University of Miami, Stetson University and Rollins College in Florida. Three Florida community colleges also offer domestic partner benefits.

Of the country's top 10 universities as ranked by U.S. News & World Report magazine, five offer domestic partner benefits and five do not, according to The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights group.UF has about 49,000 students and 12,000 faculty and staff members.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:28 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry, 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: December 2, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Brussels) The Belgian government has moved a step closer to allowing same-sex couples to co-parent.

The lower house of Parliament has approved legislation to permit gay and lesbian couples to adopt and for both partners to be recognized as the legal parent of each other's children.

It not only permits co-parenting but would also ensure the children in same-sex households would have the same rights to inheritance and succession as children of heterosexual couples.
The bill passed 77 to 62. If it gains approval in the upper house it would make Belgium the third member of the European Union to allow co-parenting, after Spain and Sweden.

The measure is expected to be voted on in the Senate in March.

Earlier this year in committee hearings on same-sex couple adoptions psychologists testified that children raised in same-sex households do about the same as those raised in traditional homes.

Gay and lesbian couples in Belgium won the right to marry in 2003 but, the law did not provide for adoption. Since then LGBT rights groups in the country have been fighting for adoption rights.

According to a recent study by the University of Ghent in Flanders, 42 percent of gays and lesbians in Belgium would like to have children. Among lesbians the figure climbed to 55 percent.
There have been about 5,000 same-sex marriages in Belgium in the past two years. The only other EU countries to permit gay marriage are the Netherlands and Spain.

Most other EU countries allow varying recognition of same-sex relationships. Britain will legalize civil partnerships this month.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:24 AM

NATIONAL NEWS washingtonblade.com

Courts considering challenges in 6 states; ruling imminent in Washington
By EARTHA JANE MELZER Dec. 02, 2005
As 2005 draws to a close, decisions are eagerly anticipated in some of the states where same-sex couples are fighting for equal marriage rights.

Some gay rights advocates expect a decision before Christmas in the Maryland case of Deane and Polyak vs. Conaway. In August, nine gay couples and a man whose partner died argued in Baltimore Circuit Court that the state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

After the hearing, Lisa Polyak, a plaintiff in the case, told the Blade that it was important to bring the marriage equality issue to the courts rather than allow the matter to be addressed by the legislature, as attorneys for the state requested.

Polyak pointed out that the Medical Decision Making Act, which would have granted certain rights to registered same-sex couples, was vetoed by the governor despite passing the legislature with bipartisan support.

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel for the Liberty Counsel, a Christian law group that has been involved in opposing same-sex marriage, decried efforts by judges to weigh in on the same-sex marriage debate.

“It is always problematic to wait on the stroke of a judge’s pen to know that marriage between one man and one woman is still the law, but generally, the litigation since 1976 has been overwhelmingly successful” in blocking gay marriage, he said.

Staver said he is optimistic that the courts will uphold the marriage laws passed in 2004 and 2005, “but if the courts strike down laws defining marriage, that will serve as a catalyst to amend the state constitution.”

Both sides expect an appeal no matter how the case is decided.

Conn., Wash. cases also pending

Also at the trial court level, in Connecticut, where civil unions became law in October, seven same-sex couples represented by the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are awaiting a date for oral arguments in the New Haven Superior Court.

In this case, Kerrigan & Mock vs. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health, the couples will argue that Connecticut’s constitution requires that they be granted the same marriage rights afforded opposite-sex couples.

In Washington state, which adopted a law limiting marriage to a man and a woman in 1998, a similar case has already reached the highest state court.

The case, Andersen et al vs. Sims et al, was brought by Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women’s Law Center. The plaintiffs are seeking full marriage rights, not civil unions.

The case began in 2004 after King County, which includes Seattle, denied marriage licenses to several same-sex couples. Lawyers for the couples have argued that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the Washington Constitution’s guarantees of liberty, equality and privacy.

Judges in King County and Thurston County agreed with the same-sex couples and found that the state law against same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. King County and Washington state appealed the ruling. The arguments at the Washington Supreme Court concluded in March.

Mark Roy, spokesperson for Lambda Legal, said that some court observers expect that the decision will come before the start of the next legislative session in January.

Lisa M. Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women’s Law Center, said the Washington Supreme Court has shown an understanding of the changing nature of families, and of the need to protect children, which is part of the group’s argument in Andersen.

Earlier this month, the Washington Supreme Court recognized the right of non-biological parents, including gay men and lesbians who became parents through reproductive technology, to maintain their relationships with their children.

“As time goes on,” Stone said, “people are getting a bit more anxious. But we’d rather wait for a good decision than get a bad one fast.”

N.J. activists pursue grassroots strategy

In New Jersey, Lambda Legal and seven same-sex couples that seek marriage rights are waiting for an oral argument date from the Supreme Court. The New Jersey case is known as Lewis vs. Harris.

Steven Goldstein, executive director of New Garden State Equality, said he is confident that if the New Jersey Supreme Court approves marriage equality, the move will be accepted by the public and the legislature.

In an effort to avoid legislative attempts to undo a judicial victory on marriage, as happened in Massachusetts, Goldstein said, New Garden State Equality has pursued a massive public outreach campaign, holding 21 town meetings across the state that involved 7,502 attendees.
The meetings, titled “New Jersey — a state that does not hate,” have been “mammoth and enthusiastic” according to Goldstein, and have generated positive discussion and news coverage throughout the state.

Evan Wolfson is author of “Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People’s Right to Marry” and serves as executive director of Freedom to Marry.

Wolfson said that of the six states with important cases likely to be decided soon, he expects Washington to come first, followed by New Jersey, and then New York where a decision is expected from an appellate court and California where the state’s highest court will consider whether the state law banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.

“By 2007, 2008 we will undoubtedly have rulings in all these courts,” he said.

Wolfson said that Massachusetts has shown that no one is hurt when same-sex couples get married and that the political culture of the state follows the lead of the court once people get a chance to see the reality of marriage.

“The sooner we have the second state and the fifth state ending marriage discrimination, the sooner the country will get through this period of discomfort and demonization by the right-wing and embrace equality as Massachusetts, Spain, Canada, Holland, and Belgium have,” Wolfson said.

“While the work continues in the courts, it is important that we continue our work in the legislature and in the most important court — the court of public opinion. We can’t expect judges to do all our heavy lifting for us.”

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:22 AM

by Beverley Wang, Associated Press
Posted: December 1, 2005 9:00 pm ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) A study commission concluded Thursday in tumultuous fashion, with the minority accusing the majority of giving no meaningful consideration to extending legal recognition to gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire.

That happened because most commission members were lawmakers and activists opposed to gay marriage, according to a minority report by four of the 15 commission members and the one alternate member.

"We in the minority believe that the majority report evidences nearly a complete failure to address the commission's mandate," said the minority report, which supported gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

The majority report, first reported by The Associated Press last week, recommended against gay marriage or civil unions and recommended amending the New Hampshire Constitution to limit marriage to unions between one man and one woman.

The majority said gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, that homosexuality is a choice because no "gay gene" exists, and that more study is needed before New Hampshire allows adoption for same sex couples. Gays and lesbians can adopt in New Hampshire, but only as single parents.
The majority recommended more flexibility in hospital visitation rules for same-sex couples, however, and recognizing parental rights of out-of-state couples. And some members recommended a Hawaii-style reciprocal benefits system for spousal and next-of-kin relationships.

Created last year, the commission was ordered to study the legal implications of allowing gay marriage, civil unions or other options. During months of work, the panel collected testimony from the public and experts, including a pediatrician, psychologists, and a man who said he used to be gay but was no longer.

Along the way, commission members also scuffled over work delays, appointees to the panel and procedures.

"In part, the majority accomplished so little because the commission sought more to put gay people on trial than to consider the full scope of policy issues before it. Throughout its proceedings, the majority forced the commission to plod through antiquated and demonizing debates about whether gay men and lesbians are psychologically stable, transmit disease through acts of sexual intimacy, or are biologically aberrant," according to the minority report.
Clashes continued Thursday during a press conference to announce the submission of the reports to the governor and Legislature when alternate member Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, grabbed the microphone and lambasted the majority.

Rep. Tony Soltani, R-Epsom, the chairman, quickly struck back.

"I was disappointed by the minority report ... the minority report attacks the individual members of the majority," Soltani said. "I would be embarrassed to submit that," he said.
Soltani also accused this reporter of bias and misquoting him and others in earlier stories. He gave no specifics. Joe Magruder, the AP's news editor in Concord, said the coverage has been fair and accurate.

In addition to Vaillancourt, the alternate, the minority consisted of state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, Rep. James MacKay, R-Concord, former Rep. Raymond Buckley, a Democrat, and public appointee Ed Butler, a board member of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:47 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 1, 2005 7:00 pm ET

(Washington) Legal battles seeking rights for gay and lesbian parents were begun Thursday in Delaware Supreme Court and in federal court in Oklahoma.

In Delaware, a woman is seeking joint custody rights over triplets that she helped raise with her former partner, the children's biological mother.

The case involves a custody dispute between former lesbian partners, Susan Symes and Elizabeth Symes, who were in a committed relationship with each other for nine years. In 1996, Susan and Beth decided to each bear a child and raise the children together. Beth gave birth to triplets who are the subject of this custody suit, and several years later Susan gave birth to one child. Shortly before the triplets turned six years old, Beth and Susan separated.

As part of their separation, Susan and Beth mutually entered into a custody agreement in October 2003 that gave custody of all four children to Susan, but three months later Beth refused to abide by the agreement.

To protect her custody rights, Susan filed a petition for joint legal and physical custody of the triplets in January 2004, which Beth contested by filing her own motion seeking primary physical custody of the triplets arguing that Susan is not a legal parent.
In October 2004, the Family Court ruled that Susan is a de facto parent, which means that she has standing to seek custody of the triplets.

In May 2005, the court awarded joint custody to Beth and Susan with primary residency at Beth's home. Beth appealed the Family Court decision in October 2005, and the case is now before the Supreme Court of Delaware.

In papers filed in court today, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights argue that the Family Court was correct in concluding that Susan is a parent to the triplets.

"For the past eight years, our client has assumed all of the obligations of a parent to these children, with the expressed consent and encouragement of the biological mother. She is therefore a parent under Delaware law," said Alphonso David, Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal.
"Lower courts in Delaware have respected parent-child relationships of nonbiological parents for quite sometime --- it is well established law --- but this is the first time the question is before the high court."

A number of courts across the country have recognized the importance of protecting children's relationships with their non-biological parents, including children of same-sex couples.
The California Supreme Court, in August, handed down decisions in three cases acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of nonbiological parents born to same-sex couples.
In September, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed and upheld the decision that it was in the best interests of twins born to a same-sex couple to grant custody to the nonbiological mother of the children.

Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a nonbiological parent can seek to demonstrate legal parent status via the de facto parent doctrine.

Meanwhile, In Oklahoma City, Lambda Legal filed papers Thursday in United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Lambda Legal asking the court to strike down Oklahoma's Adoption Invalidation Law.

Although single gays may become the parent of adoptive children same-sex couples are barred from adopting and allows the state to invalidate adoptions were couples have been awarded joint parenting rights in states where co-adoption is legal.

The suit says that the law is so extreme that it has the potential to make children adopted by same-sex couples in other states legal orphans when the families are in or dealing with officials from the state of Oklahoma.

"In every state across the country, the status created by adoption has two essential components: the creation of parent-child relationships that are recognized across state boundaries and the establishment of a host of rights and obligations that arise from parenthood," said Ken Upton, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's South Central Regional Office and lead attorney on the case.

"Oklahoma's Adoption Invalidation Law threatens to categorically deny the fundamental rights, obligations and protections flowing from the parent-child relationship and must be struck down."

Lambda Legal argues that the law is unconstitutional based on the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process and right to travel, as well as the mandates of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Lambda represents same-sex couples and their families who adopted children while living in other states and later moved to Oklahoma or want to visit the state with their family.
Anne Magro and Heather Finstuen, together 14 years, are parents to seven-year-old twin girls born to Anne and adopted through a second-parent adoption by Heather when they lived in New Jersey. The family now lives in Norman, Oklahoma, where Anne teaches accounting at the University of Oklahoma.

The new law endangers the legal relationship established by a New Jersey court between Heather and her daughters.

Also plaintiffs in the case are Ed Swaya and Greg Hampel, who live in Washington State and adopted their three-year-old daughter, Vivian, after she was born in Oklahoma. The two men made news when the state of Oklahoma initially refused to issue an amended birth certificate that accurately reflected both men as Vivian's parents after a court in Washington issued an adoption decree.

Before the new law was passed, the Oklahoma State Department of Health issued Vivian's correct birth certificate, but Swaya and Hampel now fear bringing Vivian to Oklahoma to visit her birth mother and see the state where she was born.

©365Gay.com 2005

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:44 AM

December 1, 2005
New York Times
By MICHAEL WINES
JOHANNESBURG, Dec. 1 - South Africa's highest court ruled today that same-sex marriages enjoy the same legal status as those between men and women, effectively making the nation one of just five worldwide that have removed legal barriers to gay and lesbian unions.
But the Constitutional Court, as the high court is known, effectively stayed its ruling for one year to give the Parliament time to amend a 1961 marriage law to reflect its decision. Should the legislature balk, the court said, the law will be automatically changed to make its provisions gender-neutral.

Few expect the Parliament to resist, even though African nations are generally intolerant of gay relationships and many South Africans are conservative on social issues. Among political factions here, only the tiny African Christian Democratic Party, whose positions carry a strong religious undercurrent, called for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriages.

The African National Congress, which controls the presidency and more than two-thirds of parliament's seats, was silent on the court's decision.

The Constitutional Court's ruling expanded on a 2004 decision by the national Supreme Court of Appeal that affirmed the marriage of a lesbian couple, who were nonetheless unable to register their union with the government's Home Affairs department. The government had appealed the ruling, arguing that the Supreme Court had encroached on Parliament's authority to make laws.
But the Constitutional Court said that the refusal to give legal status to gay marriages, though grounded in common law, violated the constitution's guarantee of equal rights. The justices said marriage laws must be amended to include the words "or spouse" alongside provisions that now refer to husbands and wives.

The decision was essentially unanimous, with one of the court's 12 judges arguing that the ruling should take effect immediately rather than being stayed.

The African Christian Democratic Party said through a spokesman that Parliament should amend the constitution to overturn the court's decision, arguing that "studies of previous civilizations reveal than when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates."

But homosexuality here is not the sort of burning social issue that it is on the American political right. South African gay men and lesbians have recently won a series of court rulings extending to them the rights and protections afforded other citizens. The government-sponsored tourism board this week announced an advertising blitz in Britain aimed at attracting gay couples to Cape Town "for the honeymoon of their dreams in 2006."

"It's not one of our political fault lines," said Steven E. Friedman, a top political analyst at Johannesburg's Center for Political Studies, a nonprofit research center. "The major issue in this society is race. That's why people join political parties. The party of social conservatism is the African Christian Democratic Party, which wins 1 percent of the vote. And that's the group of people who feel that this justifies amending the constitution."

Among some gay rights groups, there was disappointment over the one-year delay. But South Africa's oldest gay and lesbian group, the Cape Town-based Triangle Project, hailed the decision as a victory over discrimination not simply against homosexuals, but against all minorities.
"To grant equality to gay and lesbian people, I would think, is a significant step in democratic reform in this country," Dawn Betteridge, the organization's director, said in a telephone interview.

"And I would hope that all South Africans would be celebrating that." One of the winning attorneys in the lawsuit, Keketso Meama, expressed disappointment at the delay in fully legalizing same-sex unions. But she said the ruling nevertheless was a striking victory for gay men and lesbians, who had few rights throughout most of South Africa's colonial history.
"We still have to wait 12 months," Ms. Meama said in a telephone interview, "but it's fine. We've already waited 300 years."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 4:05 PM

December 1, 2005
By MICHAEL WINES
New York Times
JOHANNESBURG, Dec. 1 - South Africa's highest court ruled today that same-sex marriages enjoy the same legal status as those between men and women, effectively making the nation one of just five worldwide that have removed legal barriers to gay and lesbian unions.
But the Constitutional Court, as the high court is known, effectively stayed its ruling for one year to give the Parliament time to amend a 1961 marriage law to reflect its decision. Should the legislature balk, the court said, the law will be automatically changed to make its provisions gender-neutral.

Few expect the Parliament to resist, even though African nations are generally intolerant of gay relationships and many South Africans are conservative on social issues. Among political factions here, only the tiny African Christian Democratic Party, whose positions carry a strong religious undercurrent, called for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriages.

The African National Congress, which controls the presidency and more than two-thirds of parliament's seats, was silent on the court's decision.

The Constitutional Court's ruling expanded on a 2004 decision by the national Supreme Court of Appeal that affirmed the marriage of a lesbian couple, who were nonetheless unable to register their union with the government's Home Affairs department. The government had appealed the ruling, arguing that the Supreme Court had encroached on Parliament's authority to make laws.
But the Constitutional Court said that the refusal to give legal status to gay marriages, though grounded in common law, violated the constitution's guarantee of equal rights. The justices said marriage laws must be amended to include the words "or spouse" alongside provisions that now refer to husbands and wives.

The decision was essentially unanimous, with one of the court's 12 judges arguing that the ruling should take effect immediately rather than being stayed.

The African Christian Democratic Party said through a spokesman that Parliament should amend the constitution to overturn the court's decision, arguing that "studies of previous civilizations reveal than when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates."

But homosexuality here is not the sort of burning social issue that it is on the American political right. South African gay men and lesbians have recently won a series of court rulings extending to them the rights and protections afforded other citizens. The government-sponsored tourism board this week announced an advertising blitz in Britain aimed at attracting gay couples to Cape Town "for the honeymoon of their dreams in 2006."

"It's not one of our political fault lines," said Steven E. Friedman, a top political analyst at Johannesburg's Center for Political Studies, a nonprofit research center. "The major issue in this society is race. That's why people join political parties. The party of social conservatism is the African Christian Democratic Party, which wins 1 percent of the vote. And that's the group of people who feel that this justifies amending the constitution."

Among some gay rights groups, there was disappointment over the one-year delay. But South Africa's oldest gay and lesbian group, the Cape Town-based Triangle Project, hailed the decision as a victory over discrimination not simply against homosexuals, but against all minorities.
"To grant equality to gay and lesbian people, I would think, is a significant step in democratic reform in this country," Dawn Betteridge, the organization's director, said in a telephone interview.

"And I would hope that all South Africans would be celebrating that." One of the winning attorneys in the lawsuit, Keketso Meama, expressed disappointment at the delay in fully legalizing same-sex unions. But she said the ruling nevertheless was a striking victory for gay men and lesbians, who had few rights throughout most of South Africa's colonial history.

"We still have to wait 12 months," Ms. Meama said in a telephone interview, "but it's fine. We've already waited 300 years."

What do you think?