LOCAL NEWS washingtonblade.com
O’Malley evasive on anti-gay amendment By ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG Apr. 27, 2006
Maryland Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martin O’Malley can’t seem to give a straight answer on the question of whether the state should ban gay marriage via constitutional amendment, according to Equality Maryland.
His main opponent in the Democratic primary, Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, has said he unequivocally opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state.
Progressive Maryland, which calls itself a "grassroots advocacy organization," distributed candidate questionnaires to gubernatorial hopefuls. One question asked if the candidate would oppose a constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage rights.
O’Malley "sidestepped" the question, according to Dan Furmansky, Equality Maryland’s executive director.
Progressive Maryland refused to release O’Malley’s questionnaire because he did not give "yes" or "no" answers as he was required to do, the group said. Duncan’s responses are posted on the organization’s website, but O’Malley’s are not.
O’Malley, the mayor of Baltimore, has a record largely supportive of gay rights, but supports civil unions instead of full marriage rights for gay couples. He issued a statement about same-sex marriage after a Baltimore Circuit Court judge ruled in January that it is unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marrying.
"I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said in a statement. "This is a fundamental issue of the state’s public policy, and a decision that ultimately should not be made by a single trial court judge. The Court of Appeals should review this matter, and any legislative action would be premature until the court acts."
O’Malley signed a bill barring discrimination based on gender identity in 2002. In January 2001, O’Malley’s housing commissioner, Paul Graziano, drew fire for making anti-gay remarks at a local bar. O’Malley said the incident was "out of character" for Graziano, but he was not fired.
The Maryland governor does not sign or veto a proposed amendment and there is no enabling legislation for the chief executive to consider.
But gay state Del. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), a Duncan supporter, argued it is important for candidates to make their views known about the amendment, because the governor’s influence can move votes one way or the other, especially among members of his party, he added.
"If [the governor] spoke out against the amendment it could be helpful in stopping it," Madaleno said.
Official defends O’Malley record
Bryan Stark, chair of O’Malley’s gay task force, said that O’Malley’s tenure as mayor shows he is an advocate for gay and lesbian rights. O’Malley created the task force in 2001.
"Nothing he’s done in the course of his career has given me any pause," said Stark. "It’s harder to have a record than it is to have rhetoric supporting our community. … He does not support writing discrimination into the constitution. He strongly opposes discrimination of any kind."
If gay rights issues take center stage in the gubernatorial election, it could benefit Republicans, Stark said.
Gay marriage "seems to have the ability to turn out voters that may unfortunately not be in line with the GLBT community," he said, adding that Democrats shouldn’t be "giving fuel to somebody else’s fire."
"I hate to sound wimpish, but I think everything has to be considered in context," he said.
Repeated calls to O’Malley’s campaign office were not returned.
Like O’Malley, Duncan also opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions. As Montgomery County executive, Duncan extended workplace benefits to same-sex couples and supported the state’s Medical Decisions Making Act, according to his office.
"It’s disappointing that Mayor O’Malley was unwilling to share his views on issues that are important to all Marylanders," Duncan said in a statement released by his campaign office. "It seems that Mayor O’Malley wants a coronation rather than an election."
Many of O’Malley’s critics agree and are accusing him of avoiding controversial issues.
Opposition to the amendment is "an unequivocal line in the land" to secure an endorsement from Equality Maryland, said Furmansky. Furmansky represents Equality Maryland on Progressive Maryland’s board of directors. Progressive Maryland has already endorsed Duncan for governor.
‘Style trumps substance’
By playing it safe and avoiding a substantive discussion of the issues, O’Malley is a "candidate where style trumps substance," said James Gimpel, a professor of politics at the University of Maryland, College Park.
"He’s taking it for granted a little bit that he’s going to win the primary," said Gimpel. "He has his eye on the general election when he will move more toward the center."
Duncan "is beginning to catch up," he said. "Duncan could close the gap."
O’Malley leads Duncan by 9 percentage points, according to a poll conducted by Gonzales Research in April. O’Malley had previously enjoyed a 20-point lead over Duncan.
Madaleno speculated that O’Malley may be banking on being the lesser of two evils in the general election.
"In the general election, no matter who the Democratic nominee is they will be better than [Republican Maryland Gov.] Bob Ehrlich," he said. "That could be the strategy O’Malley is trying to make right now."
Ehrlich has publicly backed the amendment.
But some of O’Malley’s gay supporters, including Grand Central gay bar owner Don Davis, remain firmly in support of the colorful mayor.
"Martin is extremely gay friendly," said Davis. "He’s always been there for gays."
Davis said he believes O’Malley’s Catholicism may influence his views on same-sex marriage.
"With his religion, he’s a devoted Catholic," said Davis, "it’s a very, very hard subject."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:52 AM

April 28, 2006

A bill allowing California's registered domestic partners to jointly file income taxes is advancing in the state's senate, clearing its first committee on Wednesday.
The State Income Tax Equity Act passed the senate committee on revenue and taxation by a 4–2 margin. It now advances to the senate's appropriation committee.
"This measure is about basic fairness for domestic partners," said Seth Kilbourn, political director for Equality California, a statewide LGBT advocacy group sponsoring the bill. "Domestic partners and their families deserve the conveniences and financial benefits that can come with filing a joint return."
The bill was authored by lesbian state senator Carole Migden of San Francisco. "The bill eliminates yet another legalized form of financial discrimination from California tax law and supports gay and lesbian families by letting them claim the same expenses on their tax forms as married couples do today," she said. (The Advocate)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:51 AM

April 28, 2006

The leader of the Union of Reform Judaism spoke at antigay televangelist Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on Wednesday and called for the acceptance and support of gay and lesbian couples, the JTA news service reports.
"Gay Americans pose no threat to their friends, neighbors, or coworkers, and when two people make a lifelong commitment to each other, we believe it is wrong to deny them the legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society," Rabbi Eric Yoffie said to shocked murmurs, scattered hisses, and boos at the packed campus stadium in Lynchburg, Va.
Falwell chastised his students, telling them he had never been booed in a synagogue. Aside from that, the reception for Yoffie was warm. Falwell said it was the first time in the 32-year history of Liberty University that a rabbi helped him deliver the weekly convocation.
Yoffie has been a vocal critic of the religious right, and Falwell's invitation was a signal of reconciliation after some difficult times between evangelicals and Jews. Yoffie began Wednesday's speech by emphasizing common ground on issues such as Israel and defending persecuted religious minorities overseas. He received warm applause when he praised evangelicals for their resolute opposition to what he called "the moral crisis in America."
But according to JTA, he also laid out Reform Judaism's fundaments, including church-state separation, a woman's right to be the ultimate arbiter about whether to have an abortion, and legal protections for gay couples. Falwell said Yoffie's tone was as important as his message. "He came across in a loving, respectful way," Falwell told JTA after the convocation.
Students said they were happy to hear differing views and hoped to find common ground on other issues. "This is an opportunity to respect and recognize as legitimate different viewpoints," said Jenni Thurman, a sophomore majoring in journalism.
Yoffie said he hoped Wednesday's appearance was the start of a relationship. "I would hope as we move forward there will be follow-up and there will be coalition building," he said. But Falwell, who said the idea to invite Yoffie came during an interview with journalist Zev Chafets, was noncommittal about a follow-up. He qualified future relations with those with whom he disagrees: "We can differ on many things not essential to the freedoms in our country."
Did those "essential" things include the continued denial of legal protections to gay couples? Falwell was evasive. "We do not believe in gay marriage or polygamy or any other family form than a man marrying a woman singly," he told JTA. (The Advocate)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:47 AM

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, April 27, 2006 · Last updated 10:59 a.m. PT

By STEVE KARNOWSKI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

MINNEAPOLIS -- When the economy in Dallas went bust in the 1990s, Chris Everett started looking around for a new place to take his skills in advertising. He settled on Minneapolis - attracted, he says, by the city's creative vibe.
Though Everett likes it here, he says he might be moving again soon. The reason: Minnesota, like many other states, might pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"To have bigotry and hatred written into our constitution changes the concept of everything, and I don't know that I would feel as accepted here," says Everett, who is gay. "The fortunate thing for me, being part of the creative class, I'm very mobile. I can do what I do just about anywhere."
A group of business leaders is pointing to people like Everett in warning that a ban on gay marriage could be bad for business.
Earlier this month, more than 50 executives - in advertising, public relations, marketing and related fields - sent a letter to Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature, warning that the proposed amendment could drive away talent from Minnesota.
"Our success as creative businesses depends upon our ability to recruit talented employees and draw clients from around the country who are attracted to Minnesota's tradition of cultural diversity, openness and tolerance," the executives said.
The argument, advanced in some other states, is that there is a "creative class" of talented workers, straight and gay, who are a driving force in the economy and seek out vibrant communities that are tolerant of differences.
Some of those who support the gay marriage ban reject the argument.
"Minnesota is such a fabulous state to live and work, it's a stretch to think people would choose not to live in Minnesota because our laws continue to reflect that marriage is between a man and a woman," said state Sen. Michele Bachmann, who has led the fight for the amendment.
Everett, a 39-year-old marketing agency VP, is resigned to the fact that Minnesota - like every state but Massachusetts - does not allow same-sex marriages. But he said he still feels a "spirit of acceptance" here - one that would be gone if a proposed ban makes it onto the November ballot and is approved by voters.
The business leaders' argument draws heavily on the ideas of Richard Florida, an economist at George Mason University and author of the books "The Rise of the Creative Class" and "The Flight of the Creative Class."
Florida describes the creative class as a fast-growing, highly educated part of society that is a driving force for economic growth. He puts its size at over 40 million and says it accounts for a disproportionate share of America's wealth, taking in nearly half of all wages and salaries.
While most members of this group aren't gay, he says, they consider tolerance for homosexuals to be important.
"Minneapolis-St. Paul is competing for a very mobile group of people who have the world for their choices," Florida said.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, said former Gov. Angus King of Maine made the creative-class argument for years before his state passed an anti-discrimination law last year.
But it hasn't worked elsewhere.
In Oklahoma in 2004, a gay rights group took out a large ad in the business section of USA Today in an unsuccessful fight against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The ad was headlined "Oklahoma: Going Out of Business" and showed a map of the state with a "Closed" sign hanging from it.
In Ohio, the argument failed statewide in both 2003 and 2004. But it mobilized many in the business community who helped repeal a city charter provision in Cincinnati in 2004 that prohibited gay rights protections, said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign.
In Minnesota, the proposed amendment is bottled up in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The House has passed a version and Pawlenty, a Republican, supports it.
Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung rejected the notion that it would put Minnesota at a competitive disadvantage. Every state but Massachusetts disallows gay marriage.
"I think you'd be hard-pressed to factually state that those laws or amendments have had any real impact on the states' ability to attract creative talent," McClung said.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:46 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 27, 2006 - 12:01 am ET

(Denver, Colorado) Call it dueling ballot measures - two that would support same-sex couples and two that would negate them. For Colorado voters November's election could be dominated by gay issues.
This week LGBT civil rights group Coloradans for Fairness and Equality filed paperwork for an initiative that says "domestic partnerships" between gay couples are not similar to marriage.
The move is aimed at countering one being circulated by a conservative group that would bar Colorado from from creating any legal status "equivalent to marriage" for gay and lesbian couples.
That initiate is in response to a third ballot measure, working its way through the legislature, that would legalize domestic partnerships with a number of rights for same-sex couples including inheritance and hospital visitation.
The fourth, supported by Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, would amend the state constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman".
To make matters even more confusing, Coloradans for Fairness is opposing the measure to create domestic partnerships because it is less than full marriage.
On top of it all, it is possible that any two measures could be passed by voters - leading to a showdown in court.
The three non-legislative initiatives each require about 68,000 valid voter signatures to make the ballot.
While it is unclear yet it any of them will get to voters one thing is certain - they're about to be inundated with ads promoting each side.
The first volley in the ad war was fired by gay activists.
Colorado gay philanthropist Tim Gill is fronting a $1.5 million ad campaign for Coloradans for Fairness. The TV campaign began running this week and will air for the next seven weeks on broadcast and cable stations in every Colorado market.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:15 AM

by The Associated Press
April 26, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Nashville, Tennessee) Two Tennessee legislators who have spearheaded anti-gay measures are joining a group that is leading the effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.State Sen. David Fowler, R-Signal Mountain, has accepted a job as executive director of the Family Action Council of Tennessee. The group is associated with Colorado-based Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian advocacy group that opposes gay rights.
Eventually Fowler will become a lobbyist for the group, but he said he will have to wait a year to do that because of the new ethics law.
Rep. Chris Clem, R-Lookout Mountain, is going to serve on the board of the Family Action Group of Tennessee.
Both lawmakers announced earlier this year they wouldn't seek re-election. Fowler said he plans to move to Nashville for his new job.
Fowler, 47, said one of his top priorities in his new job will be promoting passage of the state Marriage Protection Amendment, scheduled for the November ballot. The proposed amendment, which seeks to ban same-sex marriage, was pushed by Fowler in the General Assembly.
"It will allow me to engage fully in those issues that really brought me to the legislature in the first place without the distractions of all the other things we must do, discuss and debate up here," Fowler said.
Clem last year sponsored a bill to ban homosexuals from adopting children, which was ultimately defeated in a House committee.
Other social and fiscal conservative causes championed by Fowler include opposing an income tax and the lottery, restricting abortion rights and supporting an effort to fire teachers who taught evolution as fact.
The Family Action Council of Tennessee is the 33rd such organization in the country, according to Focus on the Family's Brad Miller, who said Fowler is "well known across this state for his support of the family and the moral values that promote a culture conducive to building strong families."
Republican Rep. Bo Watson of Hixson is running unopposed for Fowler's traditionally Republican District 11 after Democratic qualifier Jim Hall announced this week he's dropping out of the race.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 12:00 AM

by The Associated Press
April 26, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET

(New York City) A new study attempts to gauge the percentage of gays and lesbians who have chosen to marry in places where that option is legal, with estimates ranging from as little as 2 percent to more than 16 percent, depending on the location.
A co-author of the report, released Wednesday, said both sides in the gay marriage debate may take heart from the findings.
The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage, reviewed data from the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Massachusetts, all of which allow same-sex partners to wed.
In each case, the study offered a range of estimates of the percentage of gays who had married, based on varying approximations _ from 1 percent to 5 percent _ of how many gays were in the general population.
In the Netherlands, where 8,127 same-sex couples married from April 1, 2001, through last December, the study said this represented between 2.6 percent and 6.3 percent of the country's gays and lesbians.
The study estimated that between 2 percent and 5 percent of Belgium's gays and lesbians, and 5.9 percent to 16.7 percent of those in Massachusetts had married. Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May 2004, and 7,341 gay and lesbians couples had wed there through last December.
The institute study said calculations for Canada were difficult because the country allowed nonresidents to marry, but it estimated that as many as 14.3 percent of the gays and lesbians in the western province of British Columbia had married.
The report does not draw any major conclusions, saying it is too early to assess long-term trends.
"Whether same-sex marriage will emerge as commonplace or normative among gays and lesbians, or fade as time and novelty passes, cannot yet be determined," it said.
However, Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and co-author of the study, said interpretations of the findings might vary according to one's views on gay marriage.
One faction, she said, might conclude that opposition to gay marriage was an overreaction given that seemingly modest numbers of people were choosing it. Another faction, she said, might look at the same numbers and contend that they did not justify overturning the long-standing concept of marriage as exclusively heterosexual.
"That's why the debate is so contentious," Gallagher said. "In one view, if you treat gay couples any differently, that's akin to racism. There's another view that there's something special about the unions of husbands and wives."
Gary Gates, a specialist in gay demography at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, was given an advance look at the study. He disagreed with Gallagher's suggestion that relatively few gays and lesbians were opting for marriage.
Looking specifically at the Massachusetts data, and noting the limited time period of 20 months, he contended that a sharply higher percentage of gays and lesbians were deciding marry than heterosexuals of marrying age.
"Numerically, same-sex couples will never comprise a major portion of the married population," Gates said in a telephone interview. "But gay people do seem to be really interested in getting married _ it's kind of a compliment to the institution of marriage."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:59 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 26, 2006 - 2:00 pm ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) Seventeen Republican state lawmakers have asked a judge to let them join a legal battle challenging the state's law barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
The 17 - representing GOP members of both the House and Senate - say they have a valid interest in opposing the suit because it threatens to change social policy could affect the state budget.
Six same-sex couples filed suit last December challenging the so-called Defense of Marriage law. 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 the case.
Lambda Legal, which represents the couples opposes allowing the lawmakers to enter the case. In a brief submitted the court Lambda argues that the Republicans "lack a legally cognizable interest in this case".
The brief said that the lawmakers simply want to use the court as a forum to express their opposition to gay marriage.
A judge has scheduled a June hearing on whether the legislators will be allowed to intervene. The lawsuit begins in October.
Iowa Republicans are pushing for an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage saying they fear the courts could overturn DOMA.
The measure has cleared the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority. But the bill has not been voted on in the Senate, where each party holds 25 seats.
Last month the Colorado-based Focus on the Family took out ads in Iowa newspaper chastising the Senate for not holding a vote.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:58 PM

by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
April 26, 2006 - 12:00 pm ET

(Washington) As students across the country button their lips today marking the 10th annual National Day of Silence to draw awareness to homophobia in classrooms a new study shows that gay-bashing remains a major problem in the nation's schools.
Three-quarters of students surveyed across America said that over the past year they heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten reported hearing "that's so gay" or "you're so gay" - meaning stupid or worthless - frequently or often.
Over a third of students said they experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and more than a quarter on the basis of their gender expression.
Nearly one-in-five students reported they had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.
The National School Climate Survey was released in Washington by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
The study also showed that bullying has had a negative impact on learning.
LGBT students were five times more likely to report having skipped school in the last month because of safety concerns than the general population of students.
Students who experience more frequent physical harassment were more likely to report they did not plan to go to college, the study found.
Overall, LGBT students were twice as likely as the general population of students to report they were not planning to pursue any post-secondary education.
In addition, the average GPA for LGBT students who were frequently physically harassed was half a grade lower than that of LGBT students experiencing less harassment.
"The 2005 National School Climate Survey reveals that anti-LGBT bullying and harassment remain commonplace in America's schools," said GLSEN Founder and Executive Director Kevin Jennings.
"On the positive side, it also makes clear that inclusive policies, supportive school staff and student clubs, like Gay-Straight Alliances, all relate to reduced harassment and higher achieving students."
The presence of supportive staff contributed to a range of positive indicators including greater sense of safety, fewer reports of missing days of school, and a higher incidence of planning to attend college the study found.
Students in schools with a GSA said they were less likely to feel unsafe, less likely to miss school, and more likely to feel like they belonged at their school than students in schools with no such clubs.
Jennings said that having a comprehensive policy was related to a lower incidence of hearing homophobic remarks and to lower rates of verbal harassment.
Students at schools with inclusive policies also reported higher rates of intervention by school staff when homophobic remarks were made.
Only nine states and the District of Columbia have comprehensive anti-bullying laws that specifically address bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation and only three of these laws mention gender identity. Nine other states have "generic" anti-bullying laws that do not specifically define "bullying" or enumerate categories of protected classes such as sexual orientation or gender identity. The remaining 32 states have no laws at all.
The NSCS found that both states with "generic" anti-bullying laws and states with no law at all had equally high rates of verbal harassment. States with inclusive policies that specifically enumerate categories including sexual orientation and gender identity, however, have significantly lower rates of verbal harassment.
An estimated half-million students are participating in the National Day of Silence nationwide. Some 4,000 schools and colleges will be involved this year.
A project of GLSEN in collaboration with the United States Student Association, the National Day of Silence draws attention to discrimination and harassment faced by gays daily in the nation's schools.
Students refrain from speaking to symbolize the silencing of LGBT students by harassment and bullying.
Those taking part pass out cards and flyers explaining the plight of younger gays. Many schools also hold “breaking the silence” event with special events highlighting the impact of anti-LGBT harassment.
The Day of Silence was founded in 1996 by students at the University of Virginia, and in years since has swept across the country.
Religious conservatives opposed to the formation of Gay-Straight Alliances and other LGBT school groups and battle anti-harassment policies to protect gay students have begun holding counter protests.
Last year a conservative Christian law group that regularly fights LGBT issues organized the Day of Truth.
Held one day after the Day of Silence, the Day of Truth was held in about 350 schools.
The Alliance Defense Fund, which organized it, said that this year it expected some 600 schools to be involved.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:56 PM

Nearly 200 religious organisations, congregations and clergy from throughout the state also filed a brief pointing out that there is broad support among religions for marriage for same-sex couples

26-Apr-2006PinkNews.co.uk writerIn 14 friend-of-the-court briefs, (lawsuits filed on behalf of someone else) filed with the New York Court of Appeals, national and state-wide religious and civil rights leaders and organisations have urged the court to put an end to state laws that deny same-sex couples the protections of marriage. The court is hearing oral arguments in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and others on behalf of same-sex couples on May 31, 2006. “It's wrong for New York to continue to deny same-sex couples and their children equal protections for their families,” said Victor Bolden, general counsel of the NAACP Legal Defence & Educational Fund, “The constitution protects the right of individuals to marry whomever they love regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.”The brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defence & Educational Fund explains laws that bar same-sex couples from marriage are similar to laws banning inter-racial marriage that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. A brief by the New York County Lawyers Association and the National Black Justice Coalition makes similar arguments. Nearly 200 religious organisations, congregations and clergy from throughout the state also filed a brief pointing out that there is broad support among religions for marriage for same-sex couples while acknowledging that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not force religious groups that do not wish to marry same-sex couples to do so. Religious groups signing the brief include Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ and Unitarian churches, and conservative and reform Jewish temples. "As a pastor who has served several congregations over the past 21 years, I've seen first-hand the loving bonds and beautiful families that have grown out of the lasting commitments of gay, lesbian and straight couples," says the Reverend Steve Clunn of the First United Methodist Church of Schenectady."While the U.S. Constitution guarantees that various religious groups will always be free to marry whom they please, I and many of my colleagues long for the day when the state will not stand in the way of our ability to marry same-sex couples." The Court of Appeals will be hearing four separate cases on May 31st, all seeking marriage for same-sex couples. Samuels and Gallagher v. New York was brought by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP against the Department of Health, which regulates marriage for most of the state. Hernandez v. Robles was brought by Lambda Legal, with pro bono co-counsel Kramer, Levin Naftalis & Frankel, against Victor Robles in his official capacity as City Clerk, which regulates marriages in New York City. The two additional cases were brought by private lawyers on behalf of same-sex couples from Ithaca, NY and Albany. © 2006 GayWired; All Rights Reserved.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:54 PM

News
April 27, 2006
Gays and lesbians in Israel have been invited to participate in Holocaust memorial services for the first time. Two members of Jerusalem Open House, the LGBT center, placed a wreath in the name of the gay community at the foot of the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion monument at Yad Vashem, the memorial to the millions who were exterminated by the Nazis.The Nazi regime was responsible for the murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust. Among the other minorities that were pursued by the Nazis were gay people, who were systematically persecuted. The Nazis required what they called "sexual deviants" to wear the pink triangle.Under Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which banned sexual intimacy between members of the same sex, an untold number of gays and lesbians were rounded up by the Nazis and send to concentration camps, where they were subjected to medical experiments, including lobotomies, and forced to work in labor camps.The number of gays sent to the camps ranges from 5,000 to 15,000, many of them having been sent to the gas chambers. (Sirius OutQ News)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:52 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 25, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Garden City, New York) Supporters of a domestic partner registry for Nassau County on Long Island say they were "sandbagged" by opponents.
Council council voted 10-8 to reject the proposal despite what supporters say was an agreement that the measure would be passed.
The registry would have allowed same-sex domestic partners to register with the county. By having their relationships certified it would have made it easier for gay and lesbian couples to gain medical insurance from private employers and would have assured people would have accesses to a partner in hospital.
In the New York City area Suffolk, New York City and Westchester counties already have partner registries.
Craig Johnson (D) called the vote embarrassing.
"To be given assurances that it would pass and have it changed ... at the 11th second is reprehensible," he said.
Joseph Scannell, the only Democrat to vote against the measure said he decided to oppose the ordinance after listening public testimony.
"This bill did not give any substantive rights. In the final analysis, the bill does not solve problems. All it does is add confusion."
"You should be ashamed of yourself," one supporter shouted at Scannell from the visitor's gallery.
Opponents of the registry outnumbered supporters at the public hearing.
"A vote for domestic registry is a vote for gay marriage," Paul Kosowski of the Nassau County Civics Association told councilors.
James Barker, pastor of the Bible Baptist Church warned the council: "You just did the Pledge of Allegiance and said 'One nation under God.' Well, if you believe that, how can you go against God's law?"
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:55 AM

by Mary Ellen Peterson, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
April 25, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET

(San Francisco) Lambda Legal is asking the California Supreme Court asking it to review a lower court decision that allowed doctors to refuse infertility treatment to lesbian patient based on their religious beliefs.
"Our client's doctors' behavior goes against established medical ethics and violates California civil rights law," said Lambda Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer.
"We're asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision because it goes against the very issue the Court settled in 2004 when it ruled that Catholic Charities, a social services agency and not a church, may not violate civil rights laws no matter how earnestly they may wish to."
In December a state appeals court ruled that Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton had the right to refuse to artificially inseminate patient Guadalupe Benitez because it would have violated their religious beliefs.
The ruling reversed a lower court decision that the doctors could not use religion as a defense.
The appeals court panel found that the doctors were within their rights because they based their decision on Benitez's unmarried status and that discrimination based on marital status is not prohibited by state law.
Benitez, 33, sued the doctors and their small practice in Vista 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, Benitez claimed that Brody told her in 1999 that her religious beliefs prevented her from helping a homosexual 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.
The doctors contend they denied treatment because Benitez and her registered domestic partner of 15 years were not married. Lambda legal maintained she was denied because of her sexual orientation, not her marital status.
Lambda said that the appeals court decision has created confusion about whether or not the California Supreme Court's Catholic Charities decision applies in this case, which is a main argument in the request for review by the Supreme Court.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:53 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 25, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) Police are investigating a death threat made against a Minnesota state senator who voted against a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.
The letter addressed to Sen. Satveer Chaudhary contained a picture of Chaudhary with a bullet hole drawn on it. The picture was attached to a newspaper ad run by a group promoting the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.
The Department of Public Safety is trying to determine the origin of the letter but assistant commissioner Tim Leslie said there was no return address on the envelope.
In a media statement Chaudhary denounced the letter as political hate speech.
"One anonymous coward does not change my mission as a legislator," Chaudhary's statement said. "It is my hope that Minnesotans will reject these blatant attempts to drive a wedge between the people of our state and not sink to their level of discourse."
The group that ran the ad - Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage - condemned the letter and said it doesn't condone threats of violence.
The Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the proposed amendment earlier this month.
The vote means the proposed amendment will not appear on the November ballot but Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage is campaigning to have the issue introduced in the next session of the legislature.
Yesterday it was disclosed that the group, and another - Minnesota for Marriage - have used a legal loophole to avoid filing lobbyist disclosure reports.
Meanwhile, a public opinion poll released last month shows that a majority of voters in Minnesota oppose same-sex marriage but are unlikely to vote for a proposed amendment to ban gay weddings.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:52 AM

April 25, 2006
Seventeen Republican lawmakers have asked a judge to let them join a legal battle over the right of Iowa gays and lesbians to marry.The legislators — 11 state senators and six members of the Iowa House of Representatives — filed affidavits in a Polk County lawsuit that contend that they have an interest in any proposed change in "fundamental public policies" set by law.Six Iowa couples sued in December, claiming Polk County Recorder Tim Brien improperly denied them marriage licenses.The lawsuit contends that Iowa marriage laws are unconstitutional because they draw "impermissible distinctions based on sex and sexual orientation."The six couples want a judge to declare it legal for same-sex pairs to marry in Iowa and to order Brien to issue the licenses.The 18 lawmakers argue in court papers that "the impact on the state's budget, and on a wide variety and great number of laws, would be substantial" if same-sex couples are allowed to wed.Legislators should be allowed to join the lawsuit, they argue, because lawmakers' interest "in establishing social policy, controlling the budget in response to current social policy and maintaining the consistency of Iowa's laws with declared social policy" would be impeded by any adverse ruling.Court papers filed on behalf of the six couples insist that the politicians "lack a legally cognizable interest in this case" and instead "merely wish to express personal opinions" in court.Judge Robert Hanson has scheduled a June hearing on whether the legislators will be allowed to intervene before the trial, set for October.Attorney Dennis Johnson said the six couples plan to ask Hanson to rule on the legal merits of the case without taking testimony. If that happens, Hanson's decision could come by the end of the summer.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:50 AM

NATION
Survey looks at trends among homosexuals - Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff WriterTuesday, April 25, 2006
Two-thirds of lesbians and a third of gay men in the United States plan to add children to their families over the next three years, according to a marketing survey to be released this week.
Those numbers have increased dramatically over the past four years, according to Jeffrey Garber, president of OpusComm Group, which conducted the annual survey of gays and lesbians with Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.
In 2002, just 15 percent of lesbians and 5 percent of gay men told the researchers they would add children to their families.
"People are saying they're more comfortable with their sexuality, that they have a right to a life partner. And along with that -- if they have a loving home -- why not a child?" Garber said.
In the same time period, the proportion of gay people surveyed who reported being "out" increased from 93 to 97 percent.
Of those surveyed this year, 21 percent of lesbians and 5 percent of gay men said they currently have a child living at home.
The survey, conducted online, measures demographics, purchasing behaviors, media consumption and lifestyles of gays and lesbians. About 7,500 people completed this year's hourlong survey; the survey was first conducted in 2001.
In politics, the survey found that gays and lesbians felt the most important criterion for candidates was support for same-sex marriage, and 61 percent of respondents said they always voted for a candidate based on his or her support of gay and lesbian issues.
On the marketing side, the survey found the most popular airline for gays and lesbians is American Airlines, the most popular auto manufacturer is Ford -- followed closely by Toyota -- and the most popular beer brand is Bud Light.
The biggest distinction between gay men and lesbians in the survey came in media consumption, especially television. Of the top five shows watched regularly by each group, the only overlap was "Will & Grace," which was the most popular program among gay men. "The L Word" was most popular among lesbians who were surveyed.
E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:49 AM

by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
April 25, 2006 - 12:01 am ET

(Washington) As the nation waits to see which state becomes the second to legalize same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian couples in the states of New Jersey and Washington the wait is unbearable.
"The tuxes are in the closet and our wedding bands are in a box in the bureau," said Jeff Smyth. "They've been there for more than a year and we have no idea when we can have our wedding."
For Smyth and his partner Bob the garment bags holding the white tuxedos have become a symbol of the thirteen months since arguments for marriage equality were made before the Washington State Supreme Court.
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 2004.
That 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.
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.
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.
Speculation is rife as to why the court is taking so long to rule. Some point to November when two justices are up for re-election. Others suggest the court doesn't want to make Washington only the second state to legalize gay marriage. Still others believe the court is deeply divided between the three possibilities.
But recent rulings by the court indicate that a year-long wait is not uncommon for the court. Over the past month it has handed down several rulings in which arguments were heard last year.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey is likely not to take so long. It has a history of ruling within several months of hearing arguments. In addition the Chief Justice is slated to retire this fall and it is widely believed she wants to be involved in the ruling.
Arguments in New Jersey were heard in February.
The justices peppered attorneys on both sides of the argument about the legal implications of opening up gay marriage, and whether the court or the legislature was the best venue to decide the issue.
The lawsuit began in 2002 when seven same-sex couples represented by Lambda filed a lawsuit seeking the right to marry.
Last 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 immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.
"If the court rules for us we intend to get married at midnight," Steven Goldstein, the Chair of Garden State Equality said. "The wait has been excruciating."
Garden State Equality already is planning a major even on the night the decision comes down - whichever way the court rules - at the Unitarian Church in Montclair.
And as same-sex couples in New Jersey and Washington await decisions gay and lesbian couples in New York State are preparing for could be the final battle for marriage equality in that state.
The state's highest court - the Court of Appeal - will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage on May 31.
The case involves five gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City.
On Monday a wide swath of organizations including nearly 200 religious groups, congregations and clergy have filed friend of the court briefs supporting same-sex couples in the case.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:04 AM

by Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com New York Bureau
April 24, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET

(New York City) A swath of organizations including nearly 200 religious groups, congregations and clergy have filed friend of the court briefs supporting same-sex marriage in New York State while Catholics have joined evangelical groups in demanding a federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.
New York State's highest court - the Court of Appeal - will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of state regulations that prevent same-sex couples from marrying on May 31.
In 14 friend-of-the-court briefs filed with the New York Court of Appeals, national and statewide religious and civil rights leaders and organizations urge the court to overturn the law.
Among the briefs was one by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the New York State Psychiatric Association which argues that sexual orientation should not be used to bar same-sex couples from marriage or raising children.
Another, from the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare Fund, and the Association to Benefit Children says that it harms children to prevent their parents from marrying.
A brief from the National Organization for Women, the New York Women's Bar Association and other women's groups charging that barring marriage for same-sex couples constitutes sex discrimination.
Religious groups signing the brief include Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ and Unitarian churches, and conservative and reform Jewish temples.
"As a pastor who has served several congregations over the past 21 years, I've seen first-hand the loving bonds and beautiful families that have grown out of the lasting commitments of gay, lesbian and straight couples," said the Reverend Steve Clunn of the First United Methodist Church of Schenectady.
"While the U.S. Constitution guarantees that various religious groups will always be free to marry whom they please, I and many of my colleagues long for the day when the state will not stand in the way of our ability to marry same-sex couples."
But while those religious leaders were supporting same-sex marriage 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage the New York Times reports.
It is the most strident position taken to day by senior officials of the Catholic Church in America, although a number of bishops are heavily involved in state constitutional battles.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled debate on the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment for the week of June 5.
Last month the Senate Republican Policy Committee distributed to senators a 16-page policy document outlining the GOP arguments for the amendment.
Calling Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Freedom To Marry a "cabal" the report said "It is plain that the same-sex marriage advocates’ campaign through the courts continues unabated. The only way to ensure that the American people, rather than judges, decide this fundamental question about the future of marriage in America is to offer them the opportunity to consider and ratify a constitutional amendment through their state legislatures."
The proposed amendment is almost identical to one which failed to get enough votes in 2004 - just before the last election. It was reintroduced in January. A House version was reintroduced in March.
To become part of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Federal law already bans recognition of same-sex unions. The federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Frist has said that the law is not enough, adding that the amendment would block "the whims of a few activist judges" from overriding "the common sense of the American people."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

April 25, 2006
In a letter to the mayors of eight other European capitals, Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen has called on his counterparts to support and uphold the rights of gays and lesbians, the BBC reports. In the letter Cohen warns that intolerance of gays and lesbians is on the increase and that support for gay rights is now critical.
The Netherlands began offering full marriage rights to gay couples five years ago, and Cohen is urging other countries to do the same. Mayors in Warsaw, Prague, Lisbon, Dublin, and Vienna are among those who have been sent copies of the letter. Cohen has also written to leaders in the Baltic capitals of Riga, Latvia; Tallinn, Estonia; and Vilnius, Lithuania, as well as European Union justice commissioner Franco Frattini.
The move is the result of a motion passed by city councillors upset about recent attacks on gays in Amsterdam. In the letter Cohen says he is "concerned" by measures in some cities to ban gay demonstrations. He calls on mayors to "adhere to the universal declaration of human rights and to do everything in your political power to open up marriage for same-sex couples and safeguard the right of public demonstrations in your city," Agence France-Presse news agency reports. (The Advocate)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:00 AM

Patrick Condon, Associated Press
The two groups pushing hardest for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Minnesota have not filed lobbyist disclosure reports, despite their work at the forefront of a debate that's dominated the Capitol much of the last three years. Instead, Minnesota for Marriage and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage have designated themselves as political committees working on a ballot question. The distinction means they face less stringent reporting requirements for salaries, advertising and PR campaigns, among other things, than do registered lobbyists. Both groups say their attorneys have assured them they are within the law. But lawmakers who have been targeted by the groups, and activists on the other side of the issu! e, say they see a loophole that's allowing their opponents to exert influence at the Capitol without a full accounting of their spending. "They come to the Capitol, they send people to talk to legislators, that to me is lobbying," said C. Scott Cooper, a lobbyist for OutFront Minnesota, the gay-rights group leading the opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, which would ask voters if they want to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Cooper's group is registered as a lobbyist group and also employs several individually registered lobbyists. The group most recently reported spending $53,406 on lobbying in the second half of 2005, with about $32,000 going to staff salaries, $15,000 on PR campaigns and $6,000 on media advertising. Most years see a few proposals for constitutional ballot questions at the Capitol, with advocacy groups usually springing up on both sides of the issue. This year, in addition to gay marriage! , wildlife enthusiasts are pushing for an amendment to dedicat! e part o f the state sales tax to preserve hunting and fishing habitats. Said Lance Ness, a volunteer lobbyist with the Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance: "Absolutely without question, I register as a lobbyist." In the last two years, the definition of marriage has been the subject of legislative hearings, press conferences, grassroots organizing, print and broadcast advertising campaigns, Capitol rallies and summit meetings. Minnesota for Marriage and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage have organized much of that activity. State law says groups working on ballot questions don't have to file as lobbyists, even though the Legislature is the only entity that can put a question on the ballot. "That's not lobbying," said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage, which has regularly run newspaper and TV ads pushing a handful of rural DFL senators to send the measure to voters. "That's education." But ! legislators who have been targeted by the groups say it feels like lobbying to them. "It's so obvious that's what they are," said Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon. "I'm getting hundreds of their cards coming into the Capitol, they're going around my district and putting up my picture, saying I'm the major obstacle to stopping a vote on this ... obviously, that's lobbying." One professional lobbyist agreed. "My initial response is, if they're lobbying the Legislature to get a ballot question on the ballot, that's lobbying," said Dominic Sposeto, who also chairs the legislative committee of the Minnesota Governmental Relations Council, a professional group for lobbyists. The other group, Minnesota for Marriage, is an affiliate of the Minnesota Family Council, a conservative policy organization. The Family Council's president, Tom Prichard, is a registered lobbyist, and the organization itself is registered as a lobby group. "M! innesota for Marriage was established for the purposes of work! ing on t he ballot question," said John Helmberger, CEO of the Family Council and chairman of Minnesota for Marriage. Minnesota for Marriage's spokesman, Chuck Darrell, has been a point man in building a statewide coalition of pastors and churchgoers charged with convincing lawmakers to put the marriage amendment on the statewide ballot. The two groups have reported spending in the past: $105,937 in 2004 by Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage, $199,904 last year by Minnesota for Marriage. But neither group said they spent $50,000 or more to influence legislative action, which would have triggered the reporting requirement. Davis said his group will exceed the $50,000 limit this year, and will file as a lobby group for the first time. The first lobbying reports of 2006 are due in mid-June. After inquiries by The Associated Press, Jeanne Olson, the executive director of the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, had staff look ! into the status of the two anti-gay marriage groups. She said if the amounts reported were spent directly on the ballot question campaigns, the two groups had satisfied their reporting requirements. The state's campaign finance and disclosure system is largely self-policing, though anyone can file a complaint against a person or group. The campaign finance board can levy fines if it investigates and finds violations. Individuals also have to file as lobbyists if they earn more than a cursory amount working the issue. Davis, though, said his work is volunteer, meaning he doesn't have to register, and his group doesn't have to register as one that employs a lobbyist. Helmberger said that Darrell is considered a communications director, not one of the Family Council's legislative contacts. "If you're doing it on your own time, you're OK," Olson said. The Minnesota Governmental Relations Council has generally favored strong disc! losure laws for groups pursuing their goals at the Legislature! . "It's transparency, so you can see who's paying and what they're paying for," Sposeto said. "We think any group that's lobbying should follow the same standards that anyone has to."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:59 AM

TOM SCHECK
Minnesota Public Radio
ST. PAUL, Minn. - A group of 50 presidents and chief executives of Minnesota-based advertising agencies, public relations firms, graphic design and other multimedia companies sent a letter to Gov. Tim Pawlenty urging him to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Paul Maccabee, owner of the Minneapolis-based public relations firm Maccabee Group, wrote the letter. Maccabee said banning gay marriage or its legal equivalents in Minnesota's constitution would make it more difficult to attract talented, creative workers to Minnesota.
"As a package, as what Minnesota stands for, to change the state constitution, to go that extra step to ban same sex marriage, it will have a long-term effect on whether our businesses, our creative businesses thrive," Maccabee said.
Maccabee's letter says that "creative class" will choose to move to other more tolerant states like California or Massachusetts. Maccabee hopes the letter will sway some lawmakers to think about the possible backlash that a constitutional amendment could cause. Maccabee and others say Minnesota, particularly the Twin Cities, is currently a magnet to the creative class.
Richard Florida, a public policy professor at George Mason University, wrote in his book "Flight of the Creative Class" that the Twin Cities metropolitan area has one of the strongest creative economies in the United States. He says the highest-paying jobs migrate to places that have a mix of talent and quality of life. He says tolerance and acceptance are big factors in creating a good quality of life. Florida says other regions should try to emulate the Twin Cities because it ranks high on those categories. He believes amending the constitution to ban same sex marriage would ruin the state's recent successes.
"It would be tragic for the state of Minnesota to send a signal to the rest of the country and the world that said we're not as tolerant as we always were," Florida said. "We're not the kind of place that is going to uphold our own standards and principals to make sure people are included. We're going to try to turn back the clock and become a less tolerant and less diverse, a less interesting and a less creative place."
The gay marriage issue has settled down at the Capitol after a committee in the Minnesota Senate defeated the measure. Supporters say they will continue to push for a full Senate vote because they fear the courts could overturn Minnesota's current law banning gay marriage.
Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, is the sponsor of the proposal. She dismisses the arguments that Minnesota's creative economy will suffer if the constitution bans gay marriage and civil unions.
"Minnesota is an inclusive state and we're inclusive because we want everyone to participate in the political process," Bachmann said. "That's the purpose of this constitutional amendment to let everyone participate in the process. No one is being excluded. We want all Minnesotans to vote. What is exclusionary is to change our laws through four people. The votes of four Supreme Court justices. That's exclusionary."
Pawlenty's spokesman, Brian McClung, said the governor will also continue to support efforts to get the measure on the ballot. McClung said Minnesota will keep its competitive edge even if the constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
"We think that Minnesota is the kind of place that people will want to move to and work in," McClung said. "Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we don't think, would necessarily have any real impact on the ability to attract people to a state that offers so much as Minnesota does."
McClung said passing a ban in Minnesota wouldn't put the state at a disadvantage with the 19 other states that have passed similar marriage bans. But in a global economy, Richard Florida said the best and brightest could decide to live in other more tolerant places like Toronto, London or Sydney.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:55 AM

LOCAL NEWS class
Advocate.com
By KERRY ELEVELD Apr. 24, 2006
The past two weeks have seen a storm of articles on the Republicans, their dismal polling numbers, and how they can possibly retain control of Congress come the November 2006 midterm elections. Some strategists have settled on same-sex marriage, once again, to get out the conservative vote.
That’s nothing new to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force co-chair Jeff Soref. "I think there’s a pattern here of the Republicans trying to find the issue of the moment that can divide and enflame people and try to use it, and I don’t know if the Democrats have found a solution yet," said Soref, who also used to chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Gay & Lesbian Americans Caucus.
But 2006 is no 2004. That latest Pew Research Center Poll conducted this March found that nationwide support for same-sex marriage has increased sharply since its last poll in February 2004. Those against allowing LGBT marriage dropped from 63 percent to 51 percent; and those favoring marriage rights for same-sex couples increased from 30 percent to 39 percent.
One of the most drastic changes came from those who said they "strongly oppose" same-sex marriage, a number that dropped from 42 percent to just 28 percent.
Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew center told the San Francisco Chronicle, "It indicates people are changing. They’re becoming more open and tolerant and we also have a shift in generations, which has a big impact."
But Jeff Soref noted that the latest opinion polls can be influenced. "That’s in the absence of any sort of very focused and negative advertising campaign about gay rights and marriage equality," he said. "If the Republicans started to really organize around it—through the pulpit and churches and advertising and people on the ground—then I think you might see opinion move again."
Taking Congress
Professor Kenneth Sherrill, Chair of the Political Science Department at Hunter College, gave two possible explanations for the improved polling numbers. One is that the sky didn’t fall after Massachusetts legalized marriage. "We always knew the world wouldn’t come to an end, and it hasn’t," said Sherrill.
The other is that President Bush and the Republican party’s negatives have skyrocketed. "At some point, people begin to care more about the war, the cost of living, losing health insurance," he said, drawing a seesaw relationship between support for same-sex marriage and Republican approval ratings.
In an AP-Ipsos poll this month, just 30 percent of the public approved of the GOP-led Congress’s performance; the public also favored Democratic control of Congress by a 49-33 margin.
"When you get poll after poll telling you basically the same thing, you have to respect the right of the American people to say they want change," said former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, as reported in an Associated Press article last week. Gingrich appeared on Fox News Sunday to sound the warning bell for Republicans.
But Democrats must gain 15 seats in the House of Representatives to take control of it and six seats in the Senate, neither of which is an easy target. Some politicians, including former President Bill Clinton, believe the Senate vote is more likely to be affected by the woes of the President and the Republican-led Congress.
In a March 27, Newsweek column, Jonathan Alter wrote:
"Senate races are more easily affected by the national mood, which favors the Democrats’ strategy of nationalizing the midterm elections. The Republican strategy is to localize the contests… The flaw in the GOP logic is that the last three midterms have all been nationalized. In 1994, the big issue powering the Gingrich Revolution was widespread dislike of Clinton. In 1998, Democrats held their own because of a national backlash against [Clinton’s] impeachment. And in 2002, Bush bucked tides that historically flow against the party controlling the White House by exploiting fears after 9/11."
Focusing the Dems
The Task Force’s Soref said that, for the moment, Republicans are taking aim at more than just gay marriage. "It seems from what’s going on right now that they’re focusing on other things like immigration. But this was predictable," said Soref. "Some of us warned a couple years ago that if [Democrats] gave into this kind of fear mongering about the call for a Constitutional Amendment on lesbian and gay rights, that the next thing down the road would be immigration, and then after that, probably [abortion rights], and other minority rights."
But the issue of choice depends on the region. Republicans do seem focused on marriage in some states. "We know that in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota, it looks like they are going to try to use it as a wedge issue," he said. "On other hand in California, it appears pretty certain that they aren’t going to use it as a wedge issue this year."
Still state constitutional amendments against gay marriage abound. According the Human Rights Campaign, seven states already have amendments on the ballot this November: Alabama, Idaho, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. Another seven may be added to the ballot pending legislative approval in Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Whether Democrats will focus their resources to battle marriage amendments is a different question. While Dr. Sherrill said "there is no solid statistical evidence" that the marriage issue actually helped Bush carry even a single state in 2004, he added, "What it did do, was it took resources that our side would have used on other issues. They set the agenda, they established the terms of debate," he said.
This year, Sherrill questioned whether Democrats would really fight the same-sex marriage issue. "There may be some tendency this time around to use those resources that went into same-sex marriage to establish the debate as being one over the condition of the economy, concern about the war, concern about the environment, concern about corruption, the general trustworthiness of the Bush Administration," he said.
Soref said that would be a mistake in states where Republicans are on the attack. "It’s entirely appropriate for the gay community to focus on anti-gay and anti-marriage campaigns and to try to get the Democrats to put some resources into those battles," Soref said. "Because where it still is being used as a wedge issue, obviously it has the ability to affect the numbers."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:52 AM

April 25, 2006
New York Times
By BRUCE LAMBERT
GARDEN CITY, N.Y., April 24 — After a heated debate between gay rights advocates and critics espousing traditional families, the Nassau County Legislature unexpectedly defeated a proposal on Monday to create a registry for unmarried couples to record domestic partnerships.
Supporters said the proposal was similar to local laws adopted across the state, including laws in New York City, Albany, Rochester, and in Westchester and Suffolk Counties.
But at Monday's hearing, critics said the registry would violate social traditions and that its real purpose was to promote gay marriage.
The measure would have enabled registered couples, either of the same sex or opposite sexes, to qualify for health insurance from employers who recognize such partnerships. A registered person would also have been entitled to visit a partner in the hospital and make funeral arrangements.
The proposal originated with the Legislature's 10-member Democratic majority. One Democrat, Roger Corbin, asked to delay the vote so he could talk with concerned clergymen, then abstained. Another Democrat, Joseph Scannell, surprised his colleagues by voting no without giving an explanation. He later said the proposal gave no substantive rights and caused "confusion."
All of the Legislature's nine Republicans, some of whom had questioned the need for a registry, voted no. The final tally was 10 against, 8 in favor and 1 abstention.
Commenting before the hearing, Ross Levi, the public policy director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group, said, "Nassau County is not blazing a radical course by seeking to create a domestic partner registry." Other supporters included the Nassau chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Nassau Gay and Lesbian Democrats.
Several people who spoke against the proposal Monday were from the Nassau Civic Association, whose Web site warned, "The Legislature is trying to send a message to Albany in support of same-sex marriage."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:51 AM

23-Apr-2006Marc ShoffmanPinkNews.co.uk Exclusive InvestigationA dispute appears to be emerging within the board of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and its advisors in regards to their policy on gay issues.Last week PinkNews.co.uk revealed an informal 5 year MCB plan to combat homophobia amongst Muslims and Islamophobia in the gay community, after talking to the group’s policy consultant, Muhammed Aziz.The story, seen as a landmark move in the organisation, was picked up by several news media including the Islam Channel, but when they spoke to the MCB media secretary, Inayat Bunglawala, he denied all knowledge of any work.He insisted that Mr Aziz does not represent the MCB and told the Islam Channel, "There is no truth in these quotes, our position is very clear, our Secretary General (Sir Iqbal Sacranie) was nearly prosecuted for this because we maintain that homosexual relationships are sinful in Islam.”“We do not believe that it is in any way equal with marriage between man and wife, we do not accept the idea of gay adoption, we believe it is completely wrong." Mr Bunglawala claimed that he spoke to Mr Aziz who refuted the comments. PinkNews.co.uk spoke to Mr Aziz for a second time, he confirmed that he his not an official policy advisor to the MCB, but he just gives them advice and sits on equality forums for them. Mr Aziz reiterated that there are plans with gay groups, but nothing as formal as a five year plan.He told PinkNews.co.uk he would seek to clarify his exact role with the MCB. Mr Bunglawala’s insistence that Mr Aziz does not represent the organisation is contradicted by his participation on the Equality and Diversity Forum (EDF) and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, where he is listed as an “advisor” to the MCB.In the minutes of the 18th January 2006 meeting of the EDF he speaks on their behalf and suggests talks with the gay charity, Stonewall. The notes, in the any other business section, said: “Mohammed Aziz addressed the subject of remarks made by Sir Iqbal Sacranie in an interview on Radio 4. Part of what was said related to a real issue about the theological position of sexuality in Islam and this needs to be engaged with and a solution sought. Two comments were made that were particularly regrettable, about damage to society and about a possible danger to public health.“While he cannot apologise for Sir Iqbal Sacranie’s comments, Mohammed would like to apologise on a personal level for the pain and hurt that they caused – he knows the pain and hurt that he would feel if such comments were made about Muslims.”He then is reported to be speaking as an “advisor to the MCB.” The document said, “This affair has been a wake-up call. Up until now, the strategy of Mohammed and others who were asked to be MCB advisors around 2002-2003 was to steer the MCB away from the topic of homosexuality.“To some extent this strategy succeeded, for example in relation to Section 28 and civil partnership. But this controversy has shown that that approach isn’t enough. So at a personal level and with the support of colleagues Mohammed plans to take this problem forward in three ways: 1) on 31st January at the APPG on conflict of rights to put some thoughts forward on how to deal with issues about theology and conflict with other rights; 2) to engage some Islamic scholars with a human rights background to address this problem; and 3) to develop a project of engagement between the communities involved, which he has already discussed with Stonewall.” Alan Wardle, Stonewall’s director of Parliamentary and Public Affairs, was also at the meeting, he confirmed there has been some contact with the MCB but said any specific projects are in the early stages, he said “It is something we may look into for the future.” A DTI spokesman also told PinkNews.co.uk that talks had taken place.The document concluded, “The EDF Chair will write to the MCB setting out EDF’s position on homophobia and Islamophobia, welcoming the discourse that is going to take place and offering to contribute to taking this dialogue forward.”But in his interview with the Islam Channel, Mr Bunglawala expressed shock that the station was covering this story and insisted, “There are no talks with any gay groups anywhere.” He added: “Islam has a clear moral position which is that it does not regard homosexual relationships as acceptable.”The MCB’s legal affairs chair, Khalid Sofi, last week told PinkNews.co.uk that Mr Aziz does work with them on issues relating to equality, discrimination and sexual orientation.Mr Bunglawa told Pinknews.co.uk, “I will always be too busy,” when asked to comment. If Mr Aziz is not a representative of MCB then this raises the question of who speaks for them on equality committees such as the EDF and CHR, as no one else is listed from the organisation on their websites or in their minutes.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:03 AM

TimesUnion.com

By THE REV. KATHERINE HANCOCK RAGSDALE
First published: Saturday, April 22, 2006
As friends of Planned Parenthood gather Tuesday at the University of Albany for the annual Faith and Choice conference, we will, under the theme Causes in Common, look at the links between assaults on reproductive justice and justice for lgbt (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered) people. The underlying question is simply: Who's in charge?

Who decides whom we love and build our lives with? Who decides if and when we have children? Who decides what our families look like? Is this a function of the government or of individual choice informed by individual conscience?
Some will argue there is no choice to be made -- God has spoken on the subjects and it is ours to obey. Apart from all the objections that ought to be arising from both the pews and legislatures to the idea of religious mandates of civil law, there is no agreement, even among the faithful, on if or how God has spoken on either issue.
The Bible says not one word about abortion. One can make a case against abortion based on a reading of the Bible. One can also make a case for it based on a reading of the Bible. And while the Bible does condemn some homosexual behavior, many will argue that the Bible is addressing temple prostitution, exploitation of the vulnerable and the use of others as mere sexual playthings apart from real relationships. The Bible never addresses homosexuality in the context of the loving and sustained partnerships that are a real part of our culture today. The Bible has nothing direct to say about homosexuality as we know it.
Ultimately, the religious condemnation of reproductive justice and lgbt justice is rooted not in the Bible but in a concerted attempt to bolster an old anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-joy, anti-woman patriarchy that suffers from an apparently insatiable appetite for power.
The faith communities are divided on both issues and have every right to preach and teach whatever it is they believe. What we don't have the right to do is to impose those what are purely moral teachings on the rest of society. Nor should we to pretend that we are in agreement about the appropriate moral teachings in either of these cases.
Many (perhaps most) of us in the community of the faithful believe that abortion must always be a legal, safe, affordable, accessible alternative for every woman. We believe this not in spite of our faith, but because of it. We may yearn and must work for a time when that is less often the best choice available. We support comprehensive sex education, accessible contraception, day care and health care and living wages -- the things that make it possible for women to choose to have children. We also know these are complex choices, each equation with its own set of variables, and no one can make them but the people who will be involved in living with their consequences.
Many of us in the community of the faithful rejoice in God's love manifested in human love wherever we find it. We deplore violence, emotional abuse, manipulation, unfair uses of power and exploitation in relationships, be they gay or straight. And we affirm mutuality, forbearance, patience and loving support in partnerships, be they gay or straight. We support gay people and the relationships we choose not in spite of our faith, but because of it.
Are we confident that every person faced with a choice about childbearing will make a choice we're comfortable with? Of course not. Are we confident that every person, gay or straight, will make relational choices that are life-giving to themselves and their communities? Of course not. Fallibility is a part of the human condition. But the realities, and limitations, of the human condition cannot be remedied by government control. These are individual choices deserving of the support, but not the control, of our communities.
Who is in control of our individual/personal lives? The answer of the secularist in a democratic society should be the individual person. The answer of the person of faith should be God, working through the choices of the faithful individual. Neither as citizens of a democracy nor of the realm of God ought we be prepared to cede the control of such matters to the government.
Ragsdale is an Episcopal priest and the executive director of Political Research Associates. She will speak at the forum at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the U Albany Campus Center.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

April 24, 2006
New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, April 23 — About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.
Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004. The signers include many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But both the organizers and gay rights groups said what was striking about the petition was the direct involvement by high-ranking Roman Catholic officials, including 16 bishops. Although the church has long opposed same-sex unions, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had previously endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment banning such unions, it was evangelical Protestants who generally led the charge when the amendment was debated in 2004.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the Knights of Columbus, a lay Catholic group.
The Catholic bishops and many of the other religious leaders involved have pledged to distribute postcards for their congregants to send to their senators urging support for the amendment. The Knights of Columbus is distributing 10 million postcards to Catholic churches.
The petition drive was organized in part by Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton, a Catholic scholar with close ties to evangelical Protestant groups. Aides to three Republican senators — Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; and Sam Brownback of Kansas — were also involved, organizers said.
Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said that at a meeting in Washington in February, the Senate aides recommended the idea of a postcard campaign, recalling the success of a similar effort that the bishops organized in support of a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.
"We think the American people are on our side on this, and we want the Senate to know it," the archbishop said.
The campaign comes as many in the Republican Party are increasingly worried that their core supporters may stay away from the polls this year because they are demoralized by the war in Iraq and other matters. Senate Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment in June, partly as a means of rallying conservatives.
No one expects the measure to pass this year. But drives to amend state constitutions to ban same sex-marriage proved powerful incentives to turning out conservative voters in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004. At least two states with contested Senate races — Tennessee and Pennsylvania, where Mr. Santorum is seeking re-election against a Democrat who also opposes abortion rights — are debating constitutional bans on same-sex marriage this year.
But Ohio and other pivotal states have already amended their constitutions, and at least one poll suggests that the public's negative response to the first same-sex marriages is cooling. A Pew Research poll in March found that 51 percent of the public opposed legalizing same-sex marriage, down from 63 percent in February 2004.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said supporters of the amendment were out of touch. "We have a war raging in Iraq, we have a Gulf Coast that needs to be rebuilt, we have an economy barely hanging on," he said. "The last thing America wants is this Republican-controlled Congress spending time writing discrimination into the Constitution."
Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, an umbrella group that supports the proposed amendment, said the religious leaders represented "huge numbers" of people. His group has set up a Web site, religiouscoalitionformarriage.org, which includes the petition, pew handouts and suggested notes for sermons.
Organizers said the petition had brought together cardinals from both the left and right sides of the United States bishops' conference, including the liberal Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles and the conservative Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, as well as Cardinals Edward M. Egan of New York, Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, William H. Keeler of Baltimore and Sean Patrick O'Malley of Boston.
The prominent conservative Protestant figures included leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination, as well as the president of conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and a handful of Episcopal bishops.
Other signers included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family; the evangelist D. James Kennedy; Bishop Charles E. Blake of the historically black Church of God in Christ; the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr., president of the National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals; Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb of the Orthodox Union; and officials of the Orthodox Church in America.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:54 AM

By Matt Canham The Salt Lake TribuneSalt Lake Tribune
The incremental march of the gay rights movement is gaining allies and picking up speed. So much so, that U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress, said young activists will live to see the legalization of same-sex marriage and the triumph over homophobia. Frank spread a message of political optimism weighed down by political realities at the Utah Stonewall Democrats fundraiser late Friday, held on the eve of today's Salt Lake County Democratic Convention. "There is no bigger difference between the two political parties today than on LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] issues," he said, noting that not all Democrats are 100 percent behind gay rights. As an example, he mentioned Utah's 2nd Congressional Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat who opposes homosexual marriage. "He doesn't represent the district that I represent," Frank told the crowd, which was peppered with local politicians. "I vote differently than Jim, but he is a decent man." Matheson was not present at the speech. Frank urged the Stonewall Democrats to pressure Matheson to change his views all the way until Election Day, then put the issue aside and vote for "the better candidate." Utah's Stonewall Democrats have tried in the past. Upset at Matheson's gay marriage position, the Stonewall Democrats turned their back as Matheson spoke at the 2004 state Democratic Convention. Stonewall Democrat Chairman Mike Picardi said he doesn't expect a protest this year, in part because he doesn't want to hinder Matheson's re-election chances. "You can kill yourself being a one-issue party," Picardi said. While still upset at Matheson's stance against gay marriage, Picardi said his group has easy access to the congressman and a good rapport. Frank laced his off-the-cuff speech with wit, which he not only aimed at far-right Republicans, but also his liberal Massachusetts constituents and even himself. Frank publicly acknowledged his sexuality in 1987 at the age of 47. At the time he was a three-term congressman, fairly secure in his seat. But staffers convinced him to conduct a poll to see how his voters responded to his public outing. The poll asked if voters were disappointed that he was gay. "The majority were not disappointed," Frank said. "The majority of men were disappointed that I was gay and the women couldn't care less. By the way, that is not good for your ego." Other questions asked if voters thought being openly gay would hurt him politically and if they would stop voting for him because of his sexuality. Frank said 42 percent thought his open homosexuality would hinder him and 21 percent said they would stop voting for him. "What they were saying was 'I can handle it, but the other guy can't,' " Frank said. Coming out of the closet was difficult but wasn't as painful as he expected. He believes by coming out, gay people not only help themselves, they also spur political change. When people realize they already know and respect a gay person, they are less likely to oppose gay-rights legislation. When gay people make their sexuality public, Frank said: "We tell the average American that they are not homophobic, they just thought they were supposed to be." And talking about your sexuality is not as uncommon as some people believe it is. Frank said heterosexual people constantly out themselves by saying something about their spouse or pointing out someone they feel is attractive. "Heterosexuals also discuss their sexual nature, but when they do it, it's called talking," he said. To further gay rights, Frank said homosexual people must not only come out of the closet, they must become politically active too, encouraging their loved ones to follow suit. "We don't win this alone," he said. "We win this with the people who love us, who support us." Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for the past two years and while receiving incredible attention when ceremonies first started taking place, Frank said same-sex marriage has become a nonissue in his home state. "I can't wait for the day when a person asks me if a gay person should be a Republican or a Democrat and I can say it depends on your economic view," he said. mcanham@sltrib.com

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 12:42 PM

April 22, 2006

By ERIC WILLIAMSSTAFF WRITERTRURO - The usually dull and genteel business of appointing members to a volunteer town board took a peculiar and aggressive turn at this week's selectmen meeting.
A candidate for reappointment to the board of fire engineers, Leo Childs, was called on the carpet by Selectman Paul Asher-Best for signing a recently circulated petition opposing gay marriage.
Childs' bid for reappointment was denied when selectmen voted unanimously to appoint other candidates. Most selectmen said their reason for not reappointing Childs was in the interest of having new faces on a town board.
Asher-Best defended his vote not to reappoint Childs on more personal grounds during an interview yesterday.
''If you think I'm not entitled to civil marriage, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you don't think I'm fully human, or that my humanity is not on par with yours,'' he said.
Asher-Best, who said he recently married his longtime partner, said he felt Childs had shown a bias against gay people by signing the petition.
''There are a lot of households in Truro headed by gay and lesbian people, and I just need to make sure that they're going to have equal protection and not have people who are biased against them in charge of public safety situations,'' he said.
Selectman ''out of line''
Two selectmen took issue with Asher-Best's criticism of Childs.
''I think it was extremely personal on Paul's part,'' Selectman Gary Palmer said. ''I understand that he takes the issue very seriously. But, I personally think it was inappropriate. It didn't relate, in my mind, to the issue at hand.''
Fred Gaechter, chairman of the board of selectman, agreed with Palmer.
''I thought (Asher-Best) was out of line,'' Gaechter said. ''Not that he doesn't have the right to his personal opinion, but so does Leo. You don't take people's political positions and use them to determine whether they can serve on the board or not.''
Gaechter said he voted for other candidates for the board because it would best serve the town to have some ''new blood'' on the panel.
Childs did not respond to several phone messages seeking comment. According to town reports, he had served on the board since 1998.
The fire engineers panel is the only town board whose members are allowed to work in the department for which they make decisions, according to the town charter. Fire Chief John Prada and Deputy Chief John Garran both serve on the board.
''It is more than an advisory board,'' Gaechter said. ''They make decisions that help run the fire department.''
Gaechter said the panel's duties include drafting a contract for a fire chief, which would have to be approved by the board of selectmen.
Web site publishes names
Asher-Best said he became aware Childs had signed the anti-gay marriage petition by checking the Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org. The site has published the names of people who signed the petition, searchable by name, address and zip code.
The site bills itself as a ''grassroots, nonprofit organization promoting dialogue on marriage equality in Massachusetts.'' It discourages actions by anyone to harm a person ''for exercising their democratic right to sign the petition.''
The organization's director said he could not recall a similar circumstance surrounding the publication of a petition signer's name but said he supported Asher-Best's inquisition. ''This is exactly what we hoped KnowThyNeighbor would do, start conversations,'' said Tom Lang.
''Gay people are the ones who have been shut up and quieted and shamed into keeping their lives quiet, private, out of the public sector for so long,'' he said. ''I applaud the selectman. It's his responsibility to ask these questions.''
Eric Williams can be reached at ewilliams@capecodonline.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 12:41 PM

by Malcolm Thornberry, 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
April 22, 2006 - 12:01 am ET

(Madrid) Support for same-sex marriage continues strong in Spain with almost two out of every three voters saying they approve of the government's decision allowing gay and lesbians couples to wed.
The latest poll, taken on march 30 by Instituto Opina, found 61 per cent of respondents agree with marriage equality. Only 32 percent said that they disapproved of the gay marriage law.
Spain in 2005 became the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.
More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples have married since the law was enacted.
The new poll is almost identical one taken shortly after the legislation was passed.
Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero pledged to bring in marriage equalization shortly after being swept into office in 2004.
The Catholic Church and Spain's main opposition party, the Popular Party, fought the measure and the PP is challenging the marriage law in the court. The Constitutional Court is expected to hear the case later this year.
In a separate case, that of two judges who opposed same-sex marriage and asked the high court to invalidate the law, the justices in a split decision rejected it on procedural grounds, saying that civil registrars did not have the right to lodge a case on constitutional issues.
The steady support for gay marriage and for Zapatero for bringing in the law is seen as an indication his support among voters remains high.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:29 AM

by The Associated Press
April 21, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Nashville, Tennessee) A group of Baptist leaders called on its members Friday to "speak positively about public education" in response to a conservative movement to pull Baptist children out of public schools.
Fifty-six pastors and organizational leaders — some from the conservative Southern Baptist Convention and others from the more moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship — signed a letter supporting public schools.
The document was posted Friday on the Web site of the Baptist Center for Ethics, a Nashville group that often criticizes the conservative direction of the Southern Baptist Convention.The letter said it's wrong for church leaders to urge their congregations to abandon public schools in favor of homeschooling or private Christian academies.
"We believe Baptists should recommit themselves to public education, not as a means toward converting school children, but because it's the right thing to do," the letter states.
"We call on Baptists to recommit themselves to the separation of church and state, which will keep public schools free from coercive pressure to promote sectarian faith, such as state-written school prayers and the teaching of neo-creationism (intelligent design)."
The Southern Baptist Convention has passed resolutions supporting homeschooling and Christian education, but it rejected a 2004 resolution made by Houston lawyer Bruce Shortt calling for parents to remove their children from public schools.
The following year, however, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a version of another resolution from Shortt that asked churches to investigate whether schools were promoting acceptance of homosexuality.
The approved resolution said "homosexual activists and their allies are devoting substantial resources and using political power to promote the acceptance among schoolchildren of homosexuality as a morally legitimate lifestyle" and it urged parents and churches to investigate textbooks and programs in schools.
Robert Parham, executive director of Baptist Center for Ethics, said the letter was signed by Baptist leaders from at least nine states and sent to churches throughout the Southeast.
Representatives with the Southern Baptist Convention did not immediately return calls seeking comment about the letter Friday.
Ed Hogan, pastor of Jersey Village Baptist Church, an SBC-affiliated church in suburban Houston, said he signed the letter because dozens of public school teachers, principals and other staff attend his church, which is located in one of the largest school districts in Texas.
"I think the SBC has become increasingly involved in conservative secular politics," Hogan said. "And I think this (public schools resolutions) is a part of that agenda. A national convention ought to be about how we can minister to and help people and not how we can further political agendas."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:28 AM

--------------------
The Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Student Union leadership promotes diversity.
Jeff Kunerth
Sentinel Staff Writer
April 21, 2006
Students at the University of Central Florida marched through campus Thursday, hand in hand, in support of benefits for same-sex partners and an anti-discrimination policy that protects gay and lesbian students.
Organizers of the march by about 100 people presented UCF President John Hitt with a letter that says the university needs to extend benefits and protections to its gay and lesbian students, faculty and staff if it wants to achieve the goal of diversity and inclusion.
"We feel that for UCF to be a fully inclusive university, it needs to add domestic-partner benefits for faculty and staff and include sexual orientation and gender identity in the non-discrimination policy," said Mallory Wells, vice president of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Student Union.
UCF already includes sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy for university employees.
The marchers want the same protection extended to students, Wells said.
University spokeswoman Linda Gray said the university's employee benefits fall under the state of Florida -- which does not provide benefits for unmarried partners, whether they are of the same sex or not.
Providing same-sex couples with the same benefits as married couples would be costly for UCF, Gray said: "It would have to be paid for with other than state funds."
If gays received the same benefits as married couples, Skip West said he and his partner of eight years -- both UCF employees -- would receive free medical care.
"That would be a tremendous benefit for us," said West, 61, who works in the university's physical plant.
West held hands with his 43-year-old co-worker, Al Davis, as they walked from the Student Union to the Administration Building along with other UCF employees and students.
Many of the marchers wore red, yellow, blue, orange and green T-shirts that read, "gay? fine by me."
After the march and presentation of the letter to Hitt's secretary, speakers stood on a plastic milk crate to reiterate their demands and vow to continue the marches until UCF recognizes the rights of gays and lesbians.
"We all deserve the right to openly love who we love without attacks or discrimination," said Karen Hofman, a 39-year-old heterosexual UCF employee who spoke in support of the demonstration.
Gray said Hitt received the students' letter and will review it.
Wells, a 20-year-old political-science major, wants more than that: "I look forward to hearing from him."
Jeff Kunerth can be reached at jkunerth@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5392

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:26 AM

By REBECCA O'HALLORANSTATE CAPITOL BUREAU
Published Friday, April 21, 2006
An organization has given itself two more weeks to gather enough signatures to ask Illinois voters in November if the state's Constitution should prohibit gay marriage.
In what some are calling a political move to motivate Republican voters, the Illinois Family Institute wants a statewide advisory referendum to determine if voters think the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as being legal only if it is between a man and a woman.
In order for the question to be on the ballot, the group must gather 283,111 signatures, which is 8 percent of the number of people who voted for governor in the last election.
"We are very, very close to the minimum number right now, with thousands coming in every day," said David E. Smith, the project director for Protect Marriage Illinois, an initiative of the IFI.
Smith said he received 10,000 signatures Thursday alone.
The group has set a goal of collecting 500,000 signatures. Smith said moving the deadline from April 20 to April 30 will allow additional churches to hold petition drives. More than 2,000 churches have been involved so far.
"That's nice, but the fact is there's 15,000 churches in Illinois," Smith said. "Some churches are just getting the word now."
The State Board of Elections must receive the petitions by May 8, six months before the general election, in order for the question to be placed on the Nov. 7 ballot.
The last time an advisory referendum made it on a statewide ballot was in 1978, according to the State Board of Elections. It had to do with limiting property taxes.
An advisory referendum would not alter the Constitution but merely make legislators aware of how many voters would support such an amendment.
In 1996, Gov. Jim Edgar signed a law that recognizes marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Smith, however, is afraid the Illinois Supreme Court may at some point rule the law unconstitutional.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided in 2003 that a state law there prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Some people say the Illinois Family Institute's initiative has an ulterior motive in an election year.
"The bottom line is they are just attempting to build a right-wing voter base in the state of Illinois, which traditionally has been moderate," said Rick Garcia, director of public policy for Equality Illinois, a gay rights group that opposes constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
Garcia said Republican governors in the past 20 years have all been moderate.
"(Right-wing Republicans) gave us Alan Keyes, they gave us Jim Ryan, and they gave us Jim Oberweis. Loser, loser, loser," Garcia said. "Three strikes and you're out."
According to a 2005 Equality Illinois poll of 600 registered voters, 38 percent supported gay marriage and 49 percent were opposed.
It also showed that 67 percent opposed amending the Illinois Constitution to ban gay marriage.
"We stand by those numbers, because those numbers have been reflected in other polls nationally," Garcia said. "Opposition to the amendment ran across every region of the state, every age group and (Republicans, Democrats and Independents)."
"They will always question the results of our polling," Garcia said of the amendment's proponents. "We challenge them... Let's have a joint poll and ask the voters of Illinois what they think about tampering with our Constitution."
The Illinois Family Institute said an advisory referendum in November will be an official poll, "and there won't be a margin of error," Smith said.
Rebecca O'Halloran can be reached at 544-2819 or rebecca.ohalloran@sj-r.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:24 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry, 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
April 21, 2006 - 12:01 am ET

(Brussels) The Belgian Senate on Thursday passed legislation recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to be parents. The measure passed the lower house in December.
The law will recognize both partners where one is the biological parent and allow couples to jointly adopt children.
The bill passed by only one vote in the Senate.
In the case of adoption, the law will cover children from Belgium or who were adopted abroad.
"This bill means children can enjoy a genuine statute, which is essential for their development. Their situation is not a shameful one," Justice Minister Laurette Onkelinx told the Senate.
LGBT rights groups had been fighting for the change in the law ever since Belgium became the second country in the world to permit same-sex marriage, arguing that many gay and lesbian couples are already raising children but that those children are not protected by law.
The new law will provide for custody, visitation and child support when a same-sex couple breaks up and provides rights for non biological parents if the other parent should die.
Belgium legalized same-sex marriage in 2003 but the law did not permit co-parenting.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:47 AM

20-Apr-2006PinkNews.co.uk writer
Israel will consider gay marriage, according to its Supreme Court.
Oral arguments from a group of gay people who married in Canada will be heard at the end of May according to reports from a gay news website.
The couples married in Canada, where same sex marriage is legal, and then returned to their homes in Israel, where they hope to have their ceremonies recognised.
Their lawyer, Onn Stock, is expected to only ask for gay marriages from outside Israel to be granted, he said: “Israeli straight couples who marry overseas have their marriages recognised by the Israeli ministry of the interior regardless of whether they are able or not to marry each other in Israel.”
But not everyone in the country, where marriage laws are guided by Jewish orthodox traditions, would support the law, Glen Lavy, of Christian legal group Alliance Defence Fund, told the Florida Baptist Press, “The law is totally neutral on sexual orientation when it comes to marriage laws, a man cannot marry a man, regardless of his sexual orientation.
“No one asks, ‘What is your sexual orientation?’ If changing the sexual orientation cannot change the outcome, then it’s not sexual orientation discrimination.”
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action suggested the case shows “gay marriage” laws are “international issues” and can put pressure on others.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:31 PM

By LOU CHIBBARO JR Apr. 20, 2006
Liberal and conservative experts on constitutional law agreed this week that the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment, which supporters say is aimed at barring courts from legalizing same-sex marriage, also would prohibit state legislatures from passing gay marriage laws.
But the experts disagreed over whether the sweeping constitutional amendment would invalidate existing civil union and domestic partnership laws and prevent other states from passing such laws in the future.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the MPA on April 27, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled a full Senate vote on the amendment for the first week in June.
The amendment states, "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a union between a man and a woman."
The House and Senate defeated the amendment in 2004 after supporters failed to line up the required two-thirds vote needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Capitol Hill observers predict both houses will defeat the amendment again this year.
The Senate defeat of the amendment in 2004 came shortly after the amendment’s supporters revised its wording. The revised version removed from the second sentence a phrase that said "state or federal law," in addition to the federal or state constitutions, could not be construed to require "that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
A dose of ‘poison’
Some legal observers speculated that the removal of the "state or federal law" clause opened the way for the amendment to allow states—through their normal legislative process—to pass domestic partner, civil union, and even same-sex marriage laws.
Gay rights advocates disputed such speculation, calling the changed amendment a Trojan horse that was as harmful to gay rights as the first version.
David Buckle, an attorney who specializes in marriage issues for the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, said the first sentence in the proposed amendment clearly states that marriage in the United States must be limited to a man and a woman.
"The bad guys who are pushing this are already arguing quite vigorously that the first sentence shuts everything down," said Buckle. "It would be the law of the land, and the second sentence would not change that."
Other advocates agreed.
"It’s the same poison in a new bottle being presented for those who want to drink it," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, a same-sex marriage advocacy group.
In an interview this week, Catholic University Law School Professor Robert Destro, who said he is sympathetic to the MPA and has provided legal advice for its supporters, agreed with gay rights advocates that the amendment would not allow states to pass gay marriage laws.
"The first sentence answers this question," Destro said. "It pre-empts state law. Period. End of story."
Destro, however, said he believes the second sentence clears the way for states to pass civil union or domestic partnership laws.
Walter Olson, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative-libertarian think tank, said he, too, agrees that the first sentence in the proposed marriage amendment "is clearly the dominant one."
Olson said conservatives like him, who support states-rights principles, believe the constitutional amendment process was "hijacked" by those who would prohibit states from enacting laws—including same-sex marriage laws—through the normal legislative process.
"They don’t care how completely democratic the process may be," Olson said. "They have discovered there are some things more important than popular sovereignty, such as their getting to win."
A question of states’ rights
Gay libertarian activist David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said his group has taken no official position on the MPA but he and most libertarians strongly oppose it.
"The main argument we would make is that marriage law has always been left to the states," Boaz said.
Much to the dismay of libertarians, Boaz said, supporters of the MPA in Congress and among so-called pro-marriage groups have ignored the principle in favor of a constitutional amendment that would trample states’ rights.
"I have not seen anything from the supporters that they would restrict the amendment to judicial edicts," he said.
Christopher Anders, an attorney and legislative analyst for the ACLU’s Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, said the ACLU believes the MPA would ban state legislatures from passing gay marriage laws and likely would prevent them from enacting civil union or domestic partnership laws.
Anders said the first sentence of the amendment clearly defines marriage as a union only of a man and a woman. He said the second sentence is "vague" and might be interpreted by some legal analysts to mean that civil unions, D.P. laws, and possibly gay marriage laws could be enacted by state legislatures.
But Anders said a dispute over the MPA would be sent to the courts for a resolution. Under longstanding court precedent, Anders said, the courts would review the MPA’s legislative history to determine its true meaning and intent. He argued the courts would find that the legislative history—set mostly by backers of the MPA—calls for an across-the-board ban on same-sex marriage.
"It’s not even close," said Anders. "The legislative history would tilt this clearly on the side of a ban against same-sex marriage by state legislatures."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:30 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 20, 2006 - 8:00 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) Legislation to include sexuality in Colorado's civil rights law has been given preliminary approval by the state Senate.
This is the 10th consecutive year such a bill has been introduced in the house. Until last year each attempt to pass the legislation has failed. In 2005, the measure passed but was vetoed by Gov. Bill Owens.
At the time Owens, a Republican, said the bill could be used to force employers to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of workers.
The governor later signed a hate crimes bill that included protections for the LGBT community.
The current civil rights bill before the Senate would protect gays and lesbians in employment and housing in Colorado.
Republicans say the bill would harm business in the state.
"This is one of those ‘gotcha’ mandates on business,” said Sen. Jim Dyer (R).
"We’re getting off on a morass here of political correctness."
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Jennifer Veiga (D) refutes the GOP claims.
"The business lobby has never opposed this bill,” Veiga said. A number of major corporations in the state already have internal human rights codes protecting the rights of gay workers she said.
A final vote is needed to send the bill to the House.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:26 PM

by The Associated Press
April 20, 2006 - 12:00 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) The gay marriage debate in Minnesota has already seen the release of secret audiotapes, and now some doctored photos are being thrown into the mix.Minnesotans in Defense of Marriage, a group pushing for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex relationships, recently started running newspaper ads bashing several DFL state senators who voted against the amendment in committee.The ads feature obviously doctored photos of senators thumbing their noses at the camera, with accompanying text arguing that's what the senators are doing to voters. Jeff Davis, director of the group, said there was never an intention to present the photos as anything but doctored."They're parody ads," Davis said. "We're using parody to make the point that this is what's being done to Minnesota voters."Davis said he'd spent about $5,000 on the ad buy. He said senators who oppose the marriage amendment can expect more aggressive advertising against them if the measure doesn't get to the ballot this November.Among the senators targeted was John Marty, DFL-Roseville, who said he expected the tactics would alienate all but the most hard-core supporters of the marriage amendment."It's a cheap shot. It's juvenile," Marty said. "To me it's what a 6th-grader would do to ridicule someone they don't like." ©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:25 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 19, 2006 - 8:00 pm ET

(Burlington, Vermont) Several parents are blasting the Burlington, Vermont school board for inviting a state-wide LGBT advocacy group to make a presentation on gay bullying at a local middle school this week.
A teenage member of Outright Vermont told the sixth graders about the bullying he faced and the difficulty he had in coping. The presentation at Lyman Hunt Middle School was part of Wellness Week". Other presentations covered topics such as tobacco, alcohol and drugs abuse, eating disorders, suicide prevention and violence against women and girls.
Parent Kristy DeGuise said parents should have been notified in advance that a gay person would be speaking.
"School is a place to learn. I don't personally believe that learning about not bashing gays is going to get them a better job in life," she told the Burlington Free Press.Mary Rouille, a parent who said she is Catholic but enrolls her children in the public system said the speech should never have been allowed.
"If we can't bring our religion into the school, they shouldn't bring their beliefs in," she said.Burlington Schools Superintendent Jeanne Collins defended the decision to invite the group.
"We're not promoting any agenda," Collins told the paper. "We're giving a real-life experience and creating an awareness for students around one aspect of our harassment policy."
Vermont passed a law in 2004 requiring schools to develop anti-bullying programs.
Last month a school in Williston, Vermont cancelled an anti-bullying presentation by Outright Vermont after some parents complained.
Earlier this month the board decided to invite the group back but allow parents to pull their students out of the assembly if they objected.
Outright Vermont spokesperson Kate Jerman said she wasn't sure her organization would participate if it was subject to different conditions than other presenters.
Opposition to LGBT presentations on bullying in schools is increasing nationwide.
Last month in Somers, New York, Kevin Jennings the executive director of the national Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network pulled out of speaking engagement at a school because of past minute restrictions imposed by the principal when some parents objected to the address.
Jennings said principal Linda Horisk wanted to make attendance at the assembly optional, something Jennings felt would have sent a wrong message to students.
Horisk also wanted to make changes to the speech, which Jennings said would have "gutted" the speech and which he was not prepared to do.
Last month a Wisconsin school cancelled Diversity Day after an "ex-gay" group complained about a gay speaker.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:49 PM

by Patrick Walters, Associated Press
April 19, 2006 - 6:00 pm ET

(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged Pennsylvania voters to return Rick Santorum to the Senate, saying his fellow Republican has used his leadership to protect the country against future terrorist attacks.
"He really has a comprehensive understanding of the dangers that are facing us," said Giuliani, a well-known moderate considering a run for president in 2008. "He understands the importance of police, the importance of law and order."
Giuliani spoke to about 150 supporters at a national security-themed event at the Centre Square Fire Company yesterday in Blue Bell, just outside Philadelphia.
"The No. 1 concern of the federal government is national security," Santorum said. "It has to be."
Santorum spoke about U.S. policy toward Syria, the fight against "Islamic fascism" and his support for the war in Iraq.
He also spoke about Iran, where, he said, "If we do not succeed on the diplomatic front, our options are not particularly attractive."
Santorum, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, is facing a tough challenge from likely Democratic challenger Bob Casey. Casey, the state treasurer and son of the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, still leads in the polls, but Santorum has narrowed the gap recently.
With a long record of support for gay rights, gun control and legal abortion, some of Giuliani's views contrast starkly with those of the staunchly conservative Santorum. Santorum's campaign recently criticized Casey, who opposes abortion rights, for enlisting the help of "liberal friends" such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Santorum's campaign, however, downplayed the political differences he had with Giuliani.
"Both agree that there is nothing more important than the safety and security of our families," Santorum spokeswoman Virginia Davis said. "There are a lot of issues that they share similar beliefs on, national security being one of them."
Giuliani said Santorum has "taken many positions. Most of them I agree with."
A Quinnipiac University poll taken earlier this month showed 48 percent of voters supporting Casey, compared to 37 percent for Santorum. The 11-point spread was four points closer than it was in mid-February and as close as the race has been in five Quinnipiac polls taken since last July.
Casey faces two lesser-known candidates in a May 16 Democratic primary -- Chuck Pennacchio, a history professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, and attorney Alan Sandals. Santorum is unopposed in the Republican primary.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:47 PM

by The Associated Press
April 19, 2006 - 4:00 pm ET

(Richmond, Virginia) A Senate committee said Wednesday it will review the explanation of a gay marriage amendment set to appear on the November ballot after opponents argued it includes persuasive language.Gay rights advocates say the draft explanation--which will eventually appear in registrars' offices and newspapers statewide _ violates state rules of neutrality by adding a paragraph explaining what the law doesn't do.While gay marriage already is illegal in the state, residents will vote on an amendment proponents say will ensure that Virginia doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.Opponents have argued the amendment's broad language could have unintended effects for all unmarried couples.State law requires a neutral explanation of any proposed amendment be distributed to voters at least 90 days before it goes to the ballot. That explanation is crafted by the Division of Legislative Services working with the attorney general.The Senate Privileges and Elections committee Wednesday received a copy of a draft including revisions made by Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell. It includes the addition of a single paragraph that explicitly limits marriage to one man and one woman and specifies that the state won't create a legal status mimicking marriage or recognize any such status created elsewhere.A previous draft, which McDonnell hadn't reviewed, separated each point.His draft also adds a line specifying that the law is not meant to target relationships unless they mimic "the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage."By adding a line that specifically targets that argument, McDonnell crossed the line from explanation to advocacy, said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, campaign manager for The Commonwealth Coalition, a group organized to block the amendment.The attorney general's press secretary, J. Tucker Martin, said McDonnell's office is willing to negotiate on wording."We're comfortable with the original language we submitted," he said. "But at the same time, we're ready to work with the senators and Legislative Services to craft language that pleases our parties."The Senate committee will have until August to agree on language. Its House counterpart also will have to approve language."If they don't approve the same language, they'll end up with a mess," Gastanaga said. "And if we don't think the language is neutral, they'll end up with a lawsuit."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:46 PM

by Steph Smith, 365Gay.com Chicago Bureau
April 19, 2006 - 2:00 pm ET

(Chicago, Illinois) In an open letter 75 United Methodist LGBT clergy, most of them not out until now, are calling on the denomination to abolish a ban on "practicing homosexuals" from the clergy.
While reaffirming their commitment to continue serving the denomination the 75 reminded United Methodists that “you are the church that opened our minds and hearts to God’s irrevocable call into ministry.”
Serving the church at every level, they “have embodied God's presence in worship and in your lives, blessing your marriages, responding to midnight calls, holding your hands, wiping your tears, and laying your precious loved ones to rest,” the letter said.
The letter was made public a week before the UMC Judicial Council meets in Kansas City. The clergy members called on the council to reverse a ruling last year that ordered the reinstatement of a Virginia pastor who had been fired after he refused to allow a gay man to join his parish.
The 75 also expressed their support for Beth Stroud, a UMC pastor who was defrocked after coming out to her congregation and saying she was in a committed relationship with another woman.
“For 35 years the UMC has been on a slow but steady course to exclude LGBT people from the life of the church as a whole,” Rev. Troy Plummer , a minister based in Chicago said quoting from the letter.
“Many in our denomination support this dismembering of Christ’s Body. Yet even while our sister Beth Stroud was stripped of her ordination credentials, hundreds of LGBT clergy continue to serve the church faithfully at every level of leadership.”
The council's rulings have led to widespread criticism within the denomination.
Although the Judicial Council has the final word on church law, the denomination's Council of Bishops issued a unanimous declaration that homosexuality is not a barrier to church membership and that the church's rules "implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends."
Last November the pastor of the biggest Methodist church in Minnesota held a service to apologize to gays and lesbians for homophobia in the denomination.
The Methodist denomination has been wrestling with the issue of homosexuality since 1972, when it declared homosexuality “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
Since that time, church legislation has been passed preventing the ordination of “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.”
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:44 PM

Issue spikes interest among crowd of 115
By JJ JacksonStaff ReporterApril 19, 2006
John Corvino said it is important to have dialogue on controversial and public issues.
Same-sex marriages are one of those issues, he said.
Corvino, a gay philosophy professor from Wayne State University, debated the issue of same-sex marriage Tuesday night with Glenn Stanton in the Bovee University Center’s Auditorium.
“The issue is not about homosexuality; it’s about marriage,” said Stanton, a religious activist and Focus on the Family senior official.
Stanton asked an audience of about 115 people to consider whether same-sex marriage contributes to human well-being or distracts from it.
“We need to have as many models as we can that serve human well-being,” he said.
Those models need to be heterosexual, Stanton said.
“Nature instills that on all civilizations,” he said. “It’s best to bond men and women together. All civilizations bring the two parts of humanity together and makes the human whole.”
Corvino argued that supporting same-sex marriage doesn’t imply it’s right for all.
“People complement or complete each other in a variety of ways,” Corvino said. “We can support traditional heterosexual marriage and still believe that it’s not right for everyone.”
Corvino said making changes to a social institution involves risk and consequences, but the same can be said for failing to make those changes.
“We shouldn't let fear create for us a kind of complacency,” he said.
Tim Kiess, Mount Pleasant resident, said it was good to see a civil debate concerning this issue.
“I respect dissent and respect other people’s views who are different than my own,” Kiess said. “I think it’s good for us to sit down and talk in a civil manner about these kinds of issues.”

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:42 PM

Kelly Kollman, Barbara Allen and Karen Wright:

NORTHFIELD, MINN. - Minnesota and much of the rest of the country have spent a great deal of time over the past two years debating the merits and perceived dangers of extending relationship rights to same-sex couples. Given the level of scrutiny that this issue has garnered, it is surprising how little we have drawn on the considerable experience of other countries to inform our own debate. Although the U.S. context is clearly distinct -- and obviously we must chart our own course in this matter -- there is much we can learn from developments in other countries. Based on our research on same-sex unions (SSUs) in Western democracies, we think there are some basic facts Americans should keep in mind, some of which may challenge common perceptions about SSUs and their effects.Although many Americans were surprised when traditionally Catholic Spain opened marriage to gay and lesbian couples last year, the Spanish government was actually following a well-established legal trend in Western Europe. Spain is one of the three European countries, along with Belgium and the Netherlands, that have legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. Eleven other European countries have chosen to recognize same-sex unions through registered partnership, civil unions and/or domestic partnership laws: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria and Portugal. The only Western European countries without such laws in place are Greece, Italy and Ireland; the latter has a civil unions bill pending in its parliament. With the adoption of Canada's Civil Marriage Law last summer, the United States is now one of the few Western democracies that does not recognize relationship rights of gay and lesbian couples at the na! tional level.Initial proposals for SSU laws were contested in many of these countries. Public support for these laws, however, has increased in almost every country that has adopted them, in some countries dramatically so. In most countries practical experience with SSUs has broadened their acceptance. Some opponents of SSU recognition in the United States have claimed that the adoption of these laws in Western Europe has caused marriage rates to decline in certain countries. There is little evidence to support this contention. European marriage rates have been declining since the 1960s, some 30 years before the introduction of the first SSU law in Denmark in 1989. There has been no overall acceleration of this trend since the introduction of these laws. In fact, Denmark has one of Europe's highest marriage rates, and this rate has increased significantly since the introduction of its registered partnership law. Although we believe any causal connection between SSU laws and marriage rates to be a dubious one, claims that these laws undermine heterosexual marriage are not supported by the evidence. As in the United States, most SSU laws in Western Europe were preceded by local initiatives recognizing the rights of same-sex couples. In Canada, federal processes of local and regional debates and decisions proved essential for creating a legitimate national agreement supporting the opening of marriage to gay and lesbian relationships. About 90 percent of Canadians lived in jurisdictions that had independently granted marriage rights to same-sex couples by the time it was adopted as national law this past July. The current U.S. trend toward cutting off future discussion of same-sex unions through constitutional amendments and "Defense of Marriage" (DOMA) laws, and rhetorically demonizing states that experiment with such recognition, is not helpful in creating a constructive national dialogue over this issue. Indeed, such "top-down" legislation is contrary to the spirit of American federalism.Extending relationship rights to same-sex couples is an issue that most Western democracies have grappled with over the past two decades. Their experience indicates that the introduction of SSU laws has tended to lessen controversy over the issue, in part by demonstrating that heterosexual marriage was not harmed. This does not mean that the United States will naturally follow the same policy course as Europe or Canada. But it does suggest that the nature of the current debate in the United States is what is aberrant, and it is unlikely to lead to a legitimate settlement of the issue.
Kelly Kollman, Barbara Allen and Karen Wright are political scientists who have taught at Carleton College. They are working on a project examining the influence of federal processes on same-sex union laws in Canada, Europe and the United States.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:41 PM

(AP)-A Senate subcommittee will meet in two weeks to review language that would explain a controversial gay marriage amendment to voters this fall.
Opponents of the amendment say the explanation violates state laws that require neutrality.
State law requires an explanation of the proposed amendment appear in print before it goes to the ballot this November.
Claire Guthrie Gastanaga is campaign manager for The Commonwealth Coalition to block the amendment. She says a draft of the explanation lumps together sections explaining how state law would be amended and adds an unfair paragraph saying what the amendment would not do.
That section and others were penned by Attorney General Robert McDonnell, who openly opposes gay rights.
The Senate Privileges and Elections committee moved to have a subcommittee review the language this morning.
(Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:39 PM

April 19, 2006, 5:29 PM EDT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) _ Democratic attorney general candidate Sean Patrick Maloney, a former adviser to President Clinton, picked up the endorsement Wednesday of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the state's largest gay-rights lobbying group. Maloney, 39, is the only openly gay candidate in the race. The "endorsement sends a message that the gay community is going to step up, pony up and show up to make its voice heard and respected on Election Day," Maloney said in a statement. Earlier, Maloney won the endorsement of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the country's largest gay political action committee. In addition to Maloney, the Democratic nomination is being sought by Mark Green, who narrowly lost the 2001 New York City mayor's race; former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo; state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky; Charlie King, a former housing official in the Clinton Administration; and Denise O'Donnell, a former U.S. attorney from Buffalo. Jeanine Pirro, a former Westchester County district attorney, is the only announced Republican candidate for attorney general.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:35 PM

19-Apr-2006Marc ShoffmanRomano Prodi’s centre left coalition, has been officially declared the winner in the Italian elections by the Supreme Court, despite doubts being cast by outgoing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.The results are good news for the gay community as Signor Prodi has promised to change Italy including introducing a civil partnership law.Official results showed a narrow gap of 49.8% for Signor Prodi's coalition against Signor Berlusconi's 49.7% in the lower house, and 158 Senate seats for the left, beating the right's 156 in the upper house. The appointment was confirmed by the SkyTG24 news channel, but did not give any sources.However, Signor Berlusconi is refusing to admit defeat, citing irregularities in the polls.The Italian elections have also seen an increase in gay representation in parliament.Gay MP Gianpaolo Silvestri was elected with the Green Party, along with Franco Grillini, who was elected with the Democrats of the left, and bisexual Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, chairman of the Green Party.Titti De Simone a lesbian was elected with Europe’s first transgender MP Vladimir Luxuria for the Communist Refoundation party.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:34 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 18, 2006 - 10:00 am ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) Legislation that would give married couples preference over single people in adopting children has been narrowly defeated in the Arizona Senate.
The 15-to-13 vote was one vote shy of the 16 needed for passage with three Republicans joining all ten Democrats present in voting against the measure.Supporters said the proposal was needed because married couples are in a position to provide children with a balanced upbringing.
Although the bill made no specific mention of same-sex couples LGBT civil rights advocates said the measure would make it harder for gay and lesbian couples to adopt, because Arizona law outlaws same-sex marriages.
The state Department of Economic Security which oversees adoptions opposed the bill, as did child welfare advocates in Arizona.
The House previously approved it 33-to-25 but the Senate vote effectively kills the measure
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 12:13 AM

By BOB LEWISAP
Political Writer
April 18 2006
RICHMOND, Va. -- Gay rights advocates expect to argue Wednesday before two legislative committees against what they say are biased wording changes to an official state explanation of a proposed constitutional gay marriage ban that goes before voters this fall. The House and Senate Privileges and Elections committees will examine drafts of the explanations that would be available from local voter registrars across the state and that would appear on the State Board of Elections Web site. Voters this fall will decide on two proposed amendments to the state Constitution: the gay marriage ban and an amendment about the incorporation of churches. After a proposed state constitutional amendment has passed the General Assembly without change in two years separated by a House election, it's up to the state's voters to ratify or reject it. State law requires that at least 90 days before a ratification election, the SBE print and distribute the official explanations to registrars and publish them twice in ads purchased in Virginia daily newspapers of 50,000 circulation or more. The explanation consists of the ballot question, the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, and a statement of no more than 500 words describing the amendment. The law requires it to be "in plain English" and "limited to a neutral explanation," including the effect of a yes or no vote. A group organizing opposition to the amendment contends that Attorney General Bob McDonnell, a conservative Republican, will push for wording in the explanation that is not neutral. "The proponents of the ... amendment clearly continue to try, in every way possible, to conceal from the voters the real impact and potential far reaching consequences of the proposed amendment," Claire Guthrie Gastanaga wrote in an e-mail sent to reporters Tuesday evening. She is campaign manager for The Commonwealth Coalition, an umbrella group of gay rights and other groups trying to defeat the referendum. Gastanaga's assertion is based on an April 17 memo sent to members of the House and Senate committees by the Division of Legislative Services, which drafts the explanation. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the memo. In it, a committee staffer wrote that only the DLS draft was attached to the memo. "Please note that this draft does not include any changes to be suggested by the Office of the Attorney General," the memo reads. "We are still working on the wording with the Attorney General's Office and I will fax or e-mail another version as soon as possible." The attorney general's press secretary, J. Tucker Martin, said McDonnell could not be reached by phone Tuesday night, so the office could not comment on the claim or discuss what changes McDonnell had in mind. Nineteen states have amended their constitutions to outlaw gay marriage. Virginia and at least five other states could do so this fall. Supporters say it's necessary to clarify that Virginia need not recognize such marriages or civil unions performed in other states. Opponents say it would write discrimination against gays and lesbians into Virginia's Bill of Rights and is unnecessary because state law already forbids same-sex marriage. It also denies recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, says he supports limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but is alarmed by a sentence in the amendment that prohibits two people of the same gender from entering any legal agreement that approximates the rights and privileges of marriage. Kaine, an attorney, contends it could imperil the right of individuals to enter into a wide range of personal contracts. Kaine has said he will vote against the amendment.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 12:11 AM

The measure would pose an economic threat to Phila. and advance inequality.
By Babette Josephs
Even though there are many issues we should be addressing in Harrisburg, a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage is currently pending before the state House of Representatives. This amendment would enshrine in our state constitution a definition of marriage and bar recognition of civil unions.
The proposed amendment reflects not only a misplaced desire to treat lesbian and gay people as second-class citizens, but also a flawed appreciation of constitutional history. In addition, it represents a real economic threat to the Philadelphia area.
As the Democratic chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, I believe it is important that I and my fellow representatives make our decisions based on a healthy respect for our great constitutional heritage and a greater understanding of the potential consequences of this amendment's passage.
As one of my colleagues, Rep. Dave Steil (R., Bucks), eloquently noted, the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions define the relationship between the government and the governed. Both constitutions describe the limits of what government may do. Those documents demonstrate our principled commitment to freedom and equality.
Over the years, the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions have been amended to meet the changing times. The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, what we call the Bill of Rights, were adopted to protect the people from an overreaching government. Amendments were adopted to expand freedom and liberty and to remedy injustices enshrined in the original documents. Constitutional amendments abolished slavery and guaranteed the right to equal protection of the law. In 1971, the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended to include an equal rights amendment for women.
These amendments have made our constitutions better documents. In the nation and in the state, amendments have not been used to advance inequality and injustice.
Now, along comes the "Marriage Protection Amendment." I firmly believe that this amendment will not make our state constitution a better document. This proposal does not advance the civil rights of our fellow citizens. Instead, it explicitly writes discrimination into our state constitution.
The Marriage Protection Amendment would interfere in the relations among the people. Because it does not deal with the relationship between the governed and the government, it would fundamentally change the nature of our constitution.
I have heard from thousands of constituents who oppose this amendment for the reasons stated. And I have heard from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, who are concerned about the possibility of this amendment undermining our domestic-violence laws. Under this amendment, some courts have ruled that they could not intervene if the victim was not married to her or his abuser.
Children's advocates are troubled by the potential harms that this amendment could cause children and their families, and labor unions fear that this amendment would make it harder to bargain for domestic-partner benefits.
Business leaders have told me they worry about the impact this amendment would have on our regional economy. Policymakers from this area understand the importance of our image as an open and tolerant place to live, work and visit; the City of Philadelphia has successfully marketed itself to gay and lesbian tourists. More and more young people are choosing to come to and stay in Philadelphia because they see Philadelphia as an exciting and dynamic place.
Many of my colleagues from Southeastern Pennsylvania and I realize how this amendment threatens this very image. If this amendment were to pass, Pennsylvania would stand apart from neighboring states. Potential employers, workers and visitors would not view the Philadelphia region as the kind of place to which they want to come.
I believe that Pennsylvania can do a lot to strengthen our communities and our families and make the lives of all adults and children healthier and better. We can do so by welcoming and valuing all people. We do not help anyone with this constitutional amendment. If it is adopted, we would only end up hurting Pennsylvania.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 12:10 AM

by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
April 18, 2006 - 12:01 am ET

(Washington) Private Christian colleges would be excepted from local and state non-discrimination laws under a proposed amendment to the Higher Education Act - a move that would allow the schools to legally reject LGBT students.
The amendment, proposed by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), would prevent accrediting boards from making adherence to non-discrimination laws a requirement.
The measure passed the House last week and is currently before the Senate
Brigham Young, University of Notre Dame, Baylor, Pepperdine and Samford universities have all been lobbying heavily for passage of the bill.
Although few boards specifically make adherence to non-discrimination laws a requirement for accreditation the schools say they want assurances they will not be targeted in the future.
"This is really a pre-emptive move on the part of these schools," BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins told the Deseret Morning News.
Pressure from the school has increased as a result of the Soulforce Equality Ride, a cross country protest of universities and colleges that do not permit gays to enroll.
Last week 30 riders were arrested over two days of demonstrations at BYU, which is affiliated with the Mormon Church.
The Equality Ride began last month in Washington D.C.. Riders have been arrested at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia which is affiliated with Christian Broadcaster Pat Robertson; and at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
On Friday another ten riders were arrested at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
Democrats in both houses of Congress oppose the amendment.
When the bill passed in a Senate committee Democrats wrote that "we believe that the amendment is not warranted in light of current practices by accrediting agencies and could have tremendous implications for the independence of accrediting agencies in determining appropriate standards for accreditation."
The committee also inserted language in the bill stating that it is not meant to allow an institution to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. The provision does not include sexuality.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:55 AM

by Peter Moore, 365Gay.com London Bureau
April 17, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(London) A lesbian who fled Albania will be allowed to remain in the UK after a court was told she and her partner would be in danger if sent home
Emine Krasniqi, 54, had been under a deportation order that would have sent her back to Albania, but the Appeal Court put a halt on that when it heard details of her relationship.
The court heard that Krasniqi and Albana Lamaj, 24, a refugee from Kosovo, were in a committed relationship and that the women could be in "gave mortal danger" if sent to either country.
The women met in the UK, but both had been raped by Serb troops because they are lesbians.
The three judges who heard the appeal were told that the couple is bringing up Lamaj's child in a "stable and committed family".
In its ruling the court noted that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision breached the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to respect for family life, when it rejected Krasniqi's application for asylum.
Allowing Ms Krasniqi's appeal, Lord Justice Chadwick said the circumstances placed it "so clearly beyond the run of family separation cases as to outweigh even the imperatives of immigration control".
But the couple is not out of danger yet. The case of Lamaj's bid for asylum has yet to be heard.
She was turned down in 2001 and is awaiting an appeal.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:53 AM

by Mark Worrall, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
April 17, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) A bill that would mandate the teaching of LGBT history in California schools will be voted on in the state Senate this week and opponents are preparing for all out war over the measure.
California already requires that African Americans, native peoples, Mexicans, Asians and Pacific Islanders be included in textbook descriptions of "the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."
The bill, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl ( D-Los Angeles) would add gays and lesbians to that list. Kuehl is the only openly lesbian member of the legislature.
“Students deserve an education that gives them a full and accurate picture of our history and society rather than one skewed by negative images and stereotypes,” Kuehl told a Senate committee last week.
Supporters say they are measurably confident the bill will pass both houses this session.
But, even if it passes there is no indication Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign it. He has been supportive of some LGBT rights measures but vetoed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.
Conservatives are miffed that the governor has not spoken out against the bill.
The Campaign for Children and Families, one of two groups pushing to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, denounced the education bill.
"This is about pushing a blatant sexual agenda -- including sex changes that involve cutting off body parts -- upon impressionable schoolchildren as young as kindergarten," the group's president, Randy Thomasson, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Both gay and conservative groups across the country are watching the progress of the bill.
If the measure becomes law similar legislation could be pursued in other states.
A second bill advancing in the legislature would require school districts and the Department of Education to enforce California's anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:51 AM

by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
April 17, 2006 - 2:00 pm ET

(Washington) More than 100 gay and lesbian families lined up in a heavy morning downpour Monday to join thousands of other families for the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.
"With the weather we're glad of the [LGBT] turnout," Family Pride spokesperson Cathy Renna told 365Gay.com. "Our spirits are not dampened."
When the gates opened the first people invited in were young volunteers.
"Welcome to this happiest of traditions at the White House," Laura Bush told them. "In Washington, we know that spring has arrived when the White House lawn is filled with children for the Easter Egg Hunt."
Mrs. Bush and the President posed for pictures - but only with the families of White House staff.
By the time the gay and other families were allowed in the First Lady had left - a carefully orchestrated move to avoid being caught on film meeting any of the children of same-sex couples as the Administration pushes for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
But even without a photo op Family Pride which rallied gay and lesbian families to take part in the event declared victory.
Television cameras focused on families with rainbow leis around their necks as they waited to enter the grounds.
"The visibility of LGBT families has been exceptional," said Renna. "It puts a face on gay families for the American public."
As the downpour subsided into a light drizzle children rolled thousands of colored eggs across the wet South Lawn with spoons.
Other eggs were available for children to color, as people dressed up as characters including the Easter Bunny strolled around the South Lawn.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled debate on the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment for the week of June 5.
The proposed amendment is almost identical to one which failed to get enough votes in 2004 - just before the last election. It was reintroduced in January. A House version was reintroduced in March.
To become part of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Federal law already bans recognition of same-sex unions. The federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Frist says that the law is not enough, adding that the amendment would block "the whims of a few activist judges" from overriding "the common sense of the American people."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:50 AM

Apr. 17, 2006 12:00 AM
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is reaching out to the religious right. But his plans to vote against a national constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages could be an obstacle to gaining support. Senate GOP leaders are preparing to force a vote on such an amendment in early June.Arizona's other GOP senator, Jon Kyl, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., are among those pushing the amendment. "The time has come" for Congress to send a marriage amendment to the states, argued a Kyl-chaired Senate committee in a report. The alternative, asserted Kyl's panel, is to risk letting judges decide the issue nationwide.The upcoming vote is raising questions about what McCain will do.Like Frist, McCain is considering a run for president in 2008. McCain also has been trying to improve relations with religious conservatives. For example, McCain has agreed to speak May 13 at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia.Many religious conservatives want the marriage amendment passed. But McCain voted against it in 2004, when the Senate last voted on the measure. It failed.McCain's office says the senator remains opposed to a national marriage amendment based on federalism - or state's rights - grounds."We should not usurp the states' right to regulate marriage until and unless the federal courts deny them that right," a McCain spokeswoman explained.But she also noted that McCain supports a proposed Arizona ballot initiative. That measure would make same-sex marriages illegal in the state. Supporters are trying to collect enough signatures to get that measure on the state's November ballot.Some Democrats are likening McCain's position to that of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. When Kerry campaigned as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, he argued that states adequately manage their own marriage laws."John McCain just got Jerry Falwell's support using John Kerry's position on gay marriage. Either John McCain's just telling people what they want to hear, or he's so muddied his stance, no one understands what it is," said Christy Setzer, spokeswoman for the Senate Majority Project, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic organization.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:45 AM

by The Associated Press
April 16, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(Washington) Protection of marriage amendment? Check. Anti-flag burning legislation? Check. New abortion limits? Check.
Between now and the November elections, Republicans are penciling in plans to take action on social issues important to religious conservatives, the foundation of the GOP base, as they defend their congressional majority.
In a year where an unpopular war in Iraq has helped drive President Bush's approval ratings below 40%, core conservatives whose turnout in November is vital to the party want assurances that they are not being taken for granted.
"It seems like for only six months, every two years — right around election time — that we're even noticed," said Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council.
"Some of these better pass," he added. "You notice when it's just lip service being paid."
Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer agreed that the effort matters.
"If they get to these things this summer, which we expect that they will, that will go a long way toward energizing the values voters at the base of the Republican Party," said Bauer, head of Americans United to Preserve Marriage.
GOP leaders long have known that the war and merely riding the coattails of a second-term president could disillusion their base.
If there was any doubt, conservatives issued a concise warning last month. Four groups representing evangelical Christians said an internal survey found that 63% of "values voters" — identified as evangelical Christians whose priorities include outlawing abortion and banning same-sex marriage — "feel Congress has not kept its promises to act on a pro-family agenda."
The Family Research Council, which headlined the survey, also announced it would hold a "Values Voter Summit" in September to "raise the bar of achievement for this Congress." At the top of the agenda could be a call for new leadership in Congress if those in power have not acted on social conservatives' issues.
Some leaders read the warning signs early.
The House has approved an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag burning and passed a bill to crack down on the practice of minors' crossing state lines for abortions to evade legal limits in their own states
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and a possible presidential candidate in 2008, announced early this year that the Senate would consider those and the anti-gay marriage amendment that has failed in both chambers despite Bush's endorsement.
"When America's values are under attack, we need to act," Frist told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.
Those were sweet words to Bauer's ears.
"The marriage amendment is in a class by itself because of what's at stake," Bauer said.
House Republican officials close to the scheduling process said the marriage amendment is headed for a House vote in July.
Sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., also a possible presidential candidate, the measure would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman — in effect rescinding a 2004 Massachusetts law that made gay marriage legal.
Sending the proposed amendment to the states for ratification may not win the two-thirds majority required in the House and Senate. But committing to a vote in June is a gesture of good faith that would resonate with social conservatives, Bauer said.
The amendment banning flag desecration, a perennial vote and favorite of some conservatives, would need the same majority for ratification. Frist has promised to bring it up in June. The amendment was ratified by the House last year but was not brought to a vote in the Senate after 35 senators declared their opposition.
The bill to curb abortions among minors has long been on Frist's list of legislative priorities. Legislation imposing penalties on anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion won easy passage in House last year.
Frist has promised to bring a similar bill to the Senate floor before the year is out.
Not on the Senate's schedule, however, is a bill allowing taxpayers to underwrite human embryonic stem cell research, a science still in its infancy that could lead to cures for many diseases.
Social conservatives, including Bush, say that the process by which the cells are derived is morally akin to abortion because the fertilized egg is destroyed.
Frist, a surgeon who enraged many in the GOP base last year when he supported a House-passed bill to fund the process, had planned a Senate vote on the matter by Easter. Congress adjourned for the holiday this month without such a debate anywhere on the Senate's calendar.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:56 AM

by The Associated Press
April 16, 2006 - 12:01 pm ET

(Washington) All the gay and lesbian families who waited in line got tickets for Monday's Easter Egg Roll at the White House.
But some are questioning why they didn't get tickets for the opening, when the first lady will be present.
Gays and lesbians are making a concerted effort this year to attend the event.
They plan to wear rainbow-colored leis as a unifying symbol but won't carry signs or chant slogans.
Members of the Family Pride Coalition say they received some of the first timed-entry tickets distributed, but they are for noon, well after the 8:00am start.
Some say they believe it was an effort to keep them away from the high-profile opening of the egg roll, which will feature first lady Laura Bush.
The White House says a large contingent of youth volunteers were given tickets for the opening, but all families are welcome to attend.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:54 AM

by The Associated Press
April 15, 2006 - 2:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Catholic adoption agencies in Worcester, Fall River and Springfield won't be penalized by the state for refusing to consider gays as adoptive parents, though their policies violate state anti-discrimination laws.
The general counsel for the state Department of Early Education, which regulates adoption agencies, said the agency isn't taking action because Romney has proposed legislation that could allow the agencies to refrain from considering gays on religious grounds.
"We're going to wait and see how the legislation plays out," attorney Constantia Papanikolaou told The Boston Globe.
Gov. Mitt Romney proposed the bill after Catholic Charities announced last month it was ending its adoption services because it couldn't reconcile state law with church teachings, which consider gay adoption "gravely immoral."
Papanikolaou said the state hasn't received any complaints from the public about the adoption practices at Catholic Charities in Worcester and Fall River, or Brightside for Families and Children in Springfield. Catholic Charities is part of the local diocese and Brightside in Springfield is run by the Sisters of Providence Health System.
Gary Buseck, legal director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston, said his group hasn't publicly protested because the state will have a new governor next year, and GLAD expects that person to vigorously enforce the state's anti-discrimination laws.
All of the candidates for governor oppose an exemption for Catholic groups from anti-discrimination laws.
"The illegality shouldn't be allowed to stand," Buseck said, adding GLAD has chosen a strategy of "watching and waiting," rather than confronting state officials.
The issue came to the forefront earlier this year, when Catholic Charities of Boston said its adoption services had to accept gay applicants to comply with state law, but Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley and the three state bishops said placing children with gay parents violated church teachings.
The church leaders asked the state to exempt Catholic agencies from the anti-discrimination law, but lawmakers said such a proposal would never pass the Legislature, and Romney said he didn't have the authority to unilaterally grant an exemption.
In March, Catholic Charities of Boston ended adoption services. Since then, the other Catholic social service agencies have said they won't accept gay applicants.
Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the Romney administration was "picking and choosing" the laws it enforces. She said Romney invoked a 1913 law to stop the state from marrying gay couples who are from out of state, but is ignoring a more recent law that protects gays from discrimination in the area of adoption.
Catherine Loeffler, executive director of Catholic Charities of Worcester, said her agency isn't harming gays or lesbians because it simply refers these applicants to other agencies. She said her organization wants to help children, while keeping its work "in harmony with Catholic teachings."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:53 AM

by The Associated Press
April 15, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(Newport, Rhode Island) Julia Pell, the daughter of former U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell and a gay rights activist in Rhode Island, has died of lung cancer. She was 52.
Pell died at Newport Hospital on Thursday evening, The Providence Journal reported on its Web site.
Pell came out as a lesbian in the early 1990s. She was a lobbyist for gay rights legislation in the Rhode Island Statehouse and served as president of the Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.
Her father, a Democrat, invoked his daughter's name during a 1993 Senate debate in which he supported a lesbian nominated for a position in the Clinton administration.
"He always stood up for me; he always stood up for what was right," Julia Pell told The Associated Press in a 1995 interview
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:52 AM

Lying on documents could lead to fine, marriage nullification
By DYANA BAGBY Apr. 14, 2006
Gay rights advocates are recommending gay U.S. citizens who want to get legally married simply bypass Massachusetts and head straight to the border — of Canada.
Last month’s Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling to uphold an obscure 1913 law that prohibits nonresidents from marrying if their marriage is banned in their home state currently leaves many gay couples married in Massachusetts but living elsewhere where their marriages are not recognized in a legal limbo, according to a spokesperson with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of eight gay couples from New England and New York who sought to marry in Massachusetts.
"We’ve had people calling us from all over wanting to know the status of their marriages — that’s a state issue and a large research question," said Carisa Cunningham. "The best bet is to either move here [to Massachusetts] or get married in Canada."
Currently, New York is on the record recognizing Canadian same-sex marriages.
Canada is the only country where gay couples can legally marry and has no residency requirements. Gay couples can also legally marry in the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, but residency requirements in those countries are enforced.
Proof of residency not required
Out-of-state gay couples began flocking to Massachusetts in 2004 after the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage, making Massachusetts the only state where gay marriages are legal in the U.S.
When applying for a marriage license with a town clerk or city registrar, out-of-state couples are required to fill out a sworn statement indicating they intend to reside in Massachusetts before a license is issued.
"We have not been issuing licenses to out-of-state couples without their intent to move here," said Doug Johnstone, town clerk for Provincetown.
This rule has been in effect since gay marriage was legalized, he added.
Johnstone, however, is one of 13 town clerks who challenged Gov. Mitt Romney’s directive to not issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Other town clerks in the lawsuit, represented by the ACLU of Massachusetts, are from Somerville, Worcester, Acton, Burlington, Cambridge, Marblehead, Nantucket, Northampton, Plymouth, Sherborn, Westford and Rowe.
But the only proof Provincetown — and other cities including Boston and Nantucket — require as an intent to reside in Massachusetts is simply a signed document. These cities don’t ask couples to present such items as bills with a Massachusetts address or a letter from a Massachusetts employer informing town officials one or both members of the couple is going to soon be working in the state.
And what if an out-of-state couple lied, saying they intend to reside in Massachusetts but have no real plans to do so?
"Someone could always do that," Johnstone said. "But that’s what the affirmation document is, and it puts the onus on the couple. We always caution same-sex couples about this intent, and we’ve turned many same-sex couples away who stated they were not going to reside in Massachusetts."
Of course, an intention is just that and is not a promise and does not require the move take place within any set time period, he added.
One Georgia couple that wants to remain anonymous for fear of their Massachusetts marriage being nullified said they had no problem signing a sworn statement that they intend to reside in Massachusetts although plans have changed since their marriage.
That "one day" in the future of residing in Massachusetts did not have a timeline or deadline, they explained.
"In our case, we were very comfortable signing it. Since timelines and deadlines were not defined by any measure whatsoever, maybe for us that meant, in our minds, moving there relatively soon, or within a few years, or who knows — maybe 20 years from now? That was our intent at that time," they said.
In Nantucket, a couple’s word is all that is needed as proof they intend to reside in Massachusetts, said Town & County Clerk Catherine Flanagan Stover.
"We require no proof that people intend to reside in Massachusetts. We take their word for it," she said. "I don’t know what the penalty is for misleading the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I suspect it is the princely sum of $100," she added.
Cunningham, of GLAD, said their organization stresses to out-of-state gay couples marrying in Massachusetts they should not lie on the legal forms needed to get married.
"We get this question all the time. I assume some people do lie, but we advise them to tell the complete truth and not to fudge on that question," she said. "We have always stressed this, before and after last month’s ruling. To not do so puts the status of their marriage in question — it puts people at risk and means their marriage is challengeable."
The state can fine a couple $100 for lying on a legal form, Cunningham confirmed. While $100 is not a lot of money, the real loss would be in trying to get the marriage validated in a couple’s home state if the Massachusetts marriage is possibly invalid, Cunningham added.
Meredith Baumann, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, declined to comment on what action could be taken against an out-of-state same-sex couple lying on a marriage form because, she said, it is a hypothetical question and the office has not yet had the issue raised.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:50 AM

Sunday, April 16, 2006
Here we are again; the same arguments, the same players, the same stage. Massachusetts faces yet another attempt at a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage two years after being legalized. I understand the concept of fighting for equality, but having to fight to maintain my equality -- that’s enough to dampen the hardiest of souls.
During these days, I find my energy by plunging deep into my heart, deep into my core. For in that place where I am most in touch with the ebb and flow of the universe, I know that the world walks with me. I know that my struggle progresses in pace with the will of the divine. My weapon is love and my army, the marginalized.
Today, I do not fight for the right of property. I do not fight for freedom from foreign occupation. I do not fight for the right to vote. While all noble, my fight is a calling of a different nature. My fight is about my capacity to love and feel joy. My fight is for the opportunity to share my heart with the larger society. And my strength comes from knowing that I cannot lose. For the very existence of the struggle heralds my enemy’s defeat. My enemy is ignorance, fear, silence, and complacency.
I call on the citizens of Massachusetts and the elected representatives of our state to once again stand on the side of equality and support gay marriage. Together, we can continue our great Commonwealth’s tradition of American social progress. Together, we can be the national beacon of justice for which we are known. Through that beacon, ignorance will perish, bigotry will rot, and the soul of our society will soar to even higher achievements.
CHRIS GOSSELIN,
Milford

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:48 AM

The Associated Press
SUNDAY, APRIL 16, 2006

HONG KONG Hong Kong, home to hundreds of thousands of British nationals, has blocked local residents from entering into same-sex civil unions at the British Consulate, a spokeswoman at the consulate said Sunday.Hong Kong's Home Affairs Bureau told the consulate Tuesday that the Chinese territory would not allow same-sex couples to marry on the mission's premises, the spokeswoman, Vanessa Gould, said.British law allows British nationals to enter civil unions with non-British nationals of the same gender at British diplomatic offices worldwide, so long as the local government does not object.Hong Kong, a Britain colony until 1997, is home to more than 200,000 British passport holders and 3.5 million more who are eligible for the British National (Overseas) passport, a travel document that does not grant the right of abode in Britain.Holders of either document are considered British nationals under the Civil Partnership Act.But the Hong Kong government "does not consider it appropriate to agree to the registration of civil partnerships of same-sex couples at the British Consulate-General Hong Kong at present," the consular office said on its Web site.The Hong Kong government made the decision because the government was still in the process of consulting on the need for laws against discrimination against gays, and did not want to be perceived as taking sides while the issue was being discussed, Lily Chen, a Home Affairs Bureau spokeswoman, said.Roddy Shaw, a gay rights activist, said, "This is a matter of British nationals exercising their rights."So far Australia, Croatia, South Africa, Venezuela, Belarus, Israel, Switzerland, Vietnam, Colombia, Japan, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica and certain U.S. states have allowed local British diplomatic offices to conduct same-sex civil unions for British subjects.Homosexuality is not outlawed in Hong Kong. A local court recently ruled in a favor of a challenge against laws that differentiate between gay and heterosexual sex.The age of consent for heterosexual sex in Hong Kong is 16, while the legal age for "sodomy" is 21. Gay activists say the distinction is discriminatory. The government is appealing the ruling.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:47 AM

Updated 4/15/2006 11:26 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Protection of marriage amendment? Check. Anti-flag burning legislation? Check. New abortion limits? Check.
Between now and the November elections, Republicans are penciling in plans to take action on social issues important to religious conservatives, the foundation of the GOP base, as they defend their congressional majority.
In a year where an unpopular war in Iraq has helped drive President Bush's approval ratings below 40%, core conservatives whose turnout in November is vital to the party want assurances that they are not being taken for granted.
"It seems like for only six months, every two years — right around election time — that we're even noticed," said Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council.
"Some of these better pass," he added. "You notice when it's just lip service being paid."
Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer agreed that the effort matters.
"If they get to these things this summer, which we expect that they will, that will go a long way toward energizing the values voters at the base of the Republican Party," said Bauer, head of Americans United to Preserve Marriage.
GOP leaders long have known that the war and merely riding the coattails of a second-term president could disillusion their base.
If there was any doubt, conservatives issued a concise warning last month. Four groups representing evangelical Christians said an internal survey found that 63% of "values voters" — identified as evangelical Christians whose priorities include outlawing abortion and banning same-sex marriage — "feel Congress has not kept its promises to act on a pro-family agenda."
The Family Research Council, which headlined the survey, also announced it would hold a "Values Voter Summit" in September to "raise the bar of achievement for this Congress." At the top of the agenda could be a call for new leadership in Congress if those in power have not acted on social conservatives' issues.
Some leaders read the warning signs early.
The House has approved an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag burning and passed a bill to crack down on the practice of minors' crossing state lines for abortions to evade legal limits in their own states
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and a possible presidential candidate in 2008, announced early this year that the Senate would consider those and the anti-gay marriage amendment that has failed in both chambers despite Bush's endorsement.
"When America's values are under attack, we need to act," Frist told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.
Those were sweet words to Bauer's ears.
"The marriage amendment is in a class by itself because of what's at stake," Bauer said.
House Republican officials close to the scheduling process said the marriage amendment is headed for a House vote in July.
Sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., also a possible presidential candidate, the measure would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman — in effect rescinding a 2004 Massachusetts law that made gay marriage legal.
Sending the proposed amendment to the states for ratification may not win the two-thirds majority required in the House and Senate. But committing to a vote in June is a gesture of good faith that would resonate with social conservatives, Bauer said.
The amendment banning flag desecration, a perennial vote and favorite of some conservatives, would need the same majority for ratification. Frist has promised to bring it up in June. The amendment was ratified by the House last year but was not brought to a vote in the Senate after 35 senators declared their opposition.
The bill to curb abortions among minors has long been on Frist's list of legislative priorities. Legislation imposing penalties on anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion won easy passage in House last year.
Frist has promised to bring a similar bill to the Senate floor before the year is out.
Not on the Senate's schedule, however, is a bill allowing taxpayers to underwrite human embryonic stem cell research, a science still in its infancy that could lead to cures for many diseases.
Social conservatives, including Bush, say that the process by which the cells are derived is morally akin to abortion because the fertilized egg is destroyed.
Frist, a surgeon who enraged many in the GOP base last year when he supported a House-passed bill to fund the process, had planned a Senate vote on the matter by Easter. Congress adjourned for the holiday this month without such a debate anywhere on the Senate's calendar.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:43 AM

Human rights board finding overturned in Scripture ad case

Anne Kyle
Saskatchewan News Network
Saturday, April 15, 2006
REGINA -- Gay activists are concerned a decision by Saskatchewan's highest court may provoke "gay bashing" as the country enters another round of debate on same-sex marriages.
"I'm very disappointed," said Gens Hellquist, one of three Saskatoon gay activists who initiated a human rights complaint against a Regina man. The complaint pitted religious freedom of expression against the rights of gays to protection against hatred and ridicule.
On Thursday, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled Hugh Owens did not violate the province's Human Rights Code when he placed an ad in The StarPhoenix in June 1997 that refl ected his views on homosexuality.
The ad cited Scripture from the Bible condemning homosexuality and depicted two stick-figure men holding hands with the universal "not-allowed" symbol superimposed over the figures.
A human rights board of inquiry found Owens violated the code because the ad exposed members of the gay community to hatred and ridicule, and was an affront to their dignity because of their sexual orientation.
A 2002 Queen's Bench decision upheld that finding, but it was appealed by Owens, who called Thursday's decision a vindication of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
"This decision says sharing the gospel message concerning this particular sexual behaviour or any other behaviour is protected and not a violation of the Human Rights Code," Owens said.
In his decision Justice Bob Richards wrote on behalf of Justices Nicholas Sherstobitoff and Gene Anne Smith that the ad was "bluntly presented and doubtlessly upsetting to many," but it didn't violate the code.
Hellquist hopes the commission, which is reviewing the decision, launches a Supreme Court appeal.
"My concern about the ruling and my interpretation of the ruling is that if you wrap up hatred and intolerance in religious dogma you can get away with it. I think we live in a world where we see examples of that occurring every day," Hellquist said.
Richards stressed that provision of the code had to be read and interpreted in a way that respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed under the charter of rights.
This is a clear victory for Christians who have in recent years been marginalized in speaking out publicly on issues of morality, religion and unpopular topics, said Ruth Ross with Christian Legal Fellowship.
"While we may not all agree with Owens' methods, we could not allow the lower court decision to remain unchallenged. The Bible, which is the foundation of our faith, cannot and should not in itself be deemed hate literature," Ross said.
However, Richards made it clear that the Bible and any other sacred text cannot serve as a licence for acting unlawfully against gays and lesbians and that each case must be decided on its individual merit.
This case illustrates that the legislation is flawed and needs repealing by the political authorities, said Canadian Civil Liberties Association spokesperson Alan Borovoy. "You are dealing here with a provision of the legislation that could do great damage to legitimate free speech."
The difficulty with this provision of the code is that there is no requirement that there be any particular intention to promote hatred or contempt. Nor is there any specific defence in the legislation for truth or reasonable belief in the truth, he said.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:42 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 14, 2006 - 12:01 am ET
(Washington) A conservative Episcopal lay group is calling for a church trial for the denomination's first openly gay bishop and the 35 bishops who endorsed his election.
The group, called Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion, on Thursday launched a national petition drive to force a trial.
In a statement the group said that only by putting the bishops - including the presiding bishop of the church - on trial could there be a final determination on the role of gays in the faith.
The group said the worldwide Anglican Communion has been fractured by the “reckless pursuit of a gay agenda that is hostile to Scripture and to the historic order of the church.”
The call for a trial raises the ante in a continuing feud within the church. Last week the group demanded that church leaders who supported the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire repent "for their sin".
“Our purpose is to demonstrate the gravity of unilateral (non-Communion) actions already taken to advance a gay agenda in our American church," the group said in its statement.
"The homosexual thrust is real, aggressive and largely influenced by a shadow gay-lesbian-transgender hierarchy of bishops, priests and laypeople. The most persistent campaigner for accelerating the gay agenda in the Episcopal church is Integrity, a 30-year-old homosexual activist organization believed to comprise much less than one per cent of the national church."
Church law allows for a trial to be held if 10 bishops file complainants.
Last week an Episcopal Church panel studying the furor over Robinson's election called for diocese to use "very considerable caution" from now on in electing bishops with same-sex partners, but stopped short of the moratorium critics demanded.
The commission also recommended that the American church offer "apology and repentance" for the turmoil within the global Anglican Communion, and said dioceses should stop creating blessing ceremonies for same-gender couples, at least temporarily.
The suggestions are among several that will go before a June meeting of the top Episcopal legislative body, called the General Convention.
On May 6, the Diocese of California is scheduled to elect a new bishop and three of the seven candidates for the post have same-sex partners. The winner of that election cannot be consecrated without approval from the General Convention, which has a long history of deferring to dioceses' choice of leader.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:34 AM

by The Associated Press
April 13, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Republican Sen. John McCain, reaching out to wary conservatives, delivered some bad news to the party's core constituency on Thursday, warning that the midterm elections will be hard for the GOP.
"We Republicans are going to have a tough race in 2006 because the country is not happy with us," McCain said. "We have a 25 percent approval rating in Congress."
The potential presidential candidate, who skipped Iowa in his 2000 bid for the White House, campaigned for Republican candidates and met privately to court conservatives critical to another pursuit of the GOP nomination.
During his Iowa appearances, McCain refused to change his stand on issues that rankle both the party's establishment and conservatives, including his opposition to ethanol subsidies and a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
McCain expressed support for President Bush's tough stance seeking sanctions against Iran for uranium enrichment and for keeping the option of military action.
"It's honesty," former state legislator Rosemary Thompson said of McCain. "You may not agree with him, but you know where he stands."
McCain complained that Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, are in danger of alienating even their base because they can't rein in spending, which he said is out of control.
"Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor," said the former Navy man. "We risk not our base voting Democratic, but what I worry about is there being disillusions with us and (voters) staying home."
Last week, an AP-Ipsos poll found that just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and by a 49-33 percent margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.
That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.
McCain faces some hurdles in Iowa, including his long-standing opposition to subsidies for ethanol production in a state that boosts the highest production of the renewable fuel in the nation.
"I was and remain opposed to subsidies," he said. He did concede that he would support some federal spending for research on alternative energy.
He reiterated his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which the Senate is likely to vote on this summer. McCain said the only way he could support it is if the courts prohibit states from setting their own marriage laws.
"I intend to vote against it," he said. "I believe each state should decide."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:33 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 13, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Indianapolis, Indiana) In a precedent setting case the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday in favor of allowing a same-sex couple to be the joint parents of a child.In a split-decision the court overturned a Morgan County judge ruling that only married couples could be co-adoptive parents.
The case involved Becki Hamilton and Kim Brennan, a lesbian couple who live in Morgan County and have been in a committed relationship for more than a decade. The infant was a foster child in their care.
Last year they applied to probate court in nearby Marion County where the state adoption agency is located, to adopt the child.
The adoption was approved but a judge in Marion County ordered the adoption halted.
At the Appeals Court the state argued that because the women live in Marion the ruling in that county should stand. The state did not challenge the adoption on the issue of sexuality but on Indiana law which prohibits adoptions by two unmarried individuals.
The couple was represented by Lambda Legal which argued that no one else had come forward to adopt the baby and that the couple was fit to be parents. Lambda also noted in arguments that the adoption law is discriminatory since same-sex couples cannot legally marry in the state.
A spokesperson for the Attorney-General's office was not available for comment although it has indicated in the past that if the state lost the case it would appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Lambda attorney Patricia Logue said she was hopeful the state would decide not to appeal the ruling.
She said that the Appeal Court decision sets an important legal precedent for same-sex couples and could have implications in other states..
"It means that foster children can be adopted by same-sex couples if it is in the best interests of the child," she told 365Gay.com.
"It's refreshing to see a court go by the facts. Everybody said they are a great family."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:32 AM

by The Associated Press
April 13, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET

(Washington) Hundreds of gay and lesbian parents hoping to take their families to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll plan to start lining up Friday evening to make sure they get tickets for the Monday event.
Thousands of tickets - an estimated 16,000 last year - are given away on a first-come-first-come basis beginning at 7:30 a.m. Saturday.
National Park Service officials said Wednesday that children of all ages may attend as long as there is at least one child 7 years old or younger, and no more than two adults per group.
First lady Laura Bush's office issued a statement saying all families are welcome to attend.
"I don't think this is a protest," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition. "Showing up, participating fully in an American tradition, showing Americans that we do exist, that in our minds isn't a protest."
Some say the gay and lesbian parents are playing politics.
"I think it's inappropriate to use a children's event to make a political statement," said Mark D. Tooley, of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
The gay and lesbian parents say they won't carry signs or chant slogans, but will wear rainbow-colored leis as a unifying symbol.
"The message is that gay and lesbian families are everywhere in this country," said Chrisler. "We care about the same things that all parents care about: providing our children with every opportunity and every experience possible."
The egg roll has been a Washington tradition since the mid-19th century. Children use spoons to push colored eggs through the grass in a race. Past events have included petting zoos and White House staff members in bunny costumes.
The president sometimes makes a brief appearance, and the first lady often reads a story. The White House has not announced plans for this year.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:31 AM

A local organization that advocates equality for gay and lesbians yesterday urged U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine (R., Ohio) to withdraw his sponsorship from a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Kim Welter, executive director of Equality Toledo, said she was saddened and disappointed to learn that the senator stepped into the same-sex marriage debate by co-sponsoring the amendment.
She said passage of the amendment would deny gay and lesbian couples and their children the opportunity to receive the same privileges and protections afforded to heterosexual couples.
"Before you continue down this discriminatory path, we simply ask that you sit down with gay and lesbian families in Toledo and northwest Ohio and hear our stories," Ms. Welter said.
The statement was made dur-ing a news conference outside the Lucas County Courthouse in downtown Toledo.
She was joined by other members of Equality Toledo, which strives to assure equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people in northwest Ohio.
Mr. DeWine is among more than 20 co-sponsors who are pushing for the U.S. constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
Mike Dawson, a spokesman for the senator, said Mr. DeWine has been consistently against gay marriage and a strong proponent for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as solely a union of one man and one woman.
"The senator has always believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman,'' he said.
But Rob Salem, a lawyer who is a member of Equality Toledo, gave examples at the news conference to show how the amendment would discriminate against gay and lesbian couples, including family law, custody of children, adoption, and estate planning. "The impact will be drastic,'' said Mr. Salem, who teaches at the University of Toledo College of Law.
A vote on the issue is scheduled for June, after the GOP primary next month. Mr. DeWine is expected to face U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown (D., Avon) in the November general election for the Senate seat.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:27 AM

Cardin, Steele oppose same-sex unions
By ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG Apr. 13, 2006
More Democratic hopefuls seeking the Maryland U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes support marriage equality than oppose it.
Kweisi Mfume, Lise Van Susteren and Allan Lichtman support full marriage equality for gay couples. Green candidate Kevin Zeese has also announced that he supports marriage rights for gays.
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the leading Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Maryland, opposes same-sex marriage but believes people who live together should be able to make medical decisions for one another, according to Steele spokesperson Bryan Johnston.
Steele attended a Defend Maryland Marriage rally last year that called for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. That effort died in committee in the recently completed legislative session.
Lichtman, like Van Susteren a newcomer to politics, told the Blade that gay rights are part of civil rights.
"I have dedicated much of my life to civil rights," said Lichtman, an attorney who recently worked to help ensure Hurricane Katrina refugees maintained their voting rights. "[Gay rights] is a civil rights issue."
Congressman Ben Cardin, considered by many the Democratic front-runner, has said he supports civil unions but believes marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. His office declined to elaborate.
After a Baltimore Circuit Court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples marriage rights, Cardin’s spokesperson Oren Shur said in a statement that, "[W]hile he will continue to work to ensure that all committed couples enjoy the same legal opportunities, he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman."
As a Maryland congressman, Cardin received a 77 out of a possible 100 on the Human Rights Campaign scorecard, which tracks gay-friendly positions of lawmakers.
Despite the difference between Mfume and Cardin on gay marriage, HRC will not be making an endorsement in the Democratic primary, according to Mike Mings, manager of HRC PAC. HRC will endorse a candidate after the Democrats and Republicans hold their party primaries in September.
No ‘litmus test’
Before making an endorsement, HRC looks at several different issues but the candidate’s stand on marriage equality is not a "litmus test."
Officials with HRC also consider a candidate’s position on repealing parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that no state shall be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state and defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law.
Cardin and Mfume were both House members at the time; Cardin supported the measure, while Mfume voted against it.
Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, said the priorities for federal candidates differ from state candidates. Members of the Democratically-controlled General Assembly have more opportunities to be proactive than their federal counterparts, he said.
Equality Maryland endorses state politicians, not those running for federal office, he said. The most important issues for U.S. Senate candidates are their positions on repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," which bars open gays from serving in the military; amending the Family & Medical Leave Act to include gay parents; providing death benefits to gay federal employees; and supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
"Equal marriage rights per se is not a big issue in Congress," he said. "While marriage is regulated on the state level, these people are statewide leaders and set the agenda nationally.
"It’s hugely important to be specific about where you stand on civil rights issues," he continued. "Who’s to say they won’t have to cast a vote to repeal a portion of DOMA?"
Even though Maryland’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is a state issue some federal politicians did publicly oppose it, including Cardin and Mfume.
"A lot of legislators are not going to want to take a position on a state-level issue or until the high court rules," said Furmansky. "It speaks all the more highly for those willing to speak out."
Mikulski stays mum
While Maryland’s Senate hopefuls have staked out their position on marriage equality, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who is not up for re-election this year, has not. Calls to her office were not returned.
Mikulski has been dogged by rumors about her own sexual orientation for years. Gay rights activists have criticized her for what they consider a hypocritical stance on gay rights. In 1996, she voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. While she opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, she has not indicated her position on marriage rights for gay couples.
"She is considered an ally to the LGBT community," Furmansky said. "We have no reason to believe she is supportive of equal marriage rights. We hope her position will change."
Mikulski received a 75 percent score on HRC’s legislative scorecard for 2004. She supported an enhanced hate crime law that would include sexual orientation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Mikulski did not sign HRC’s pledge not to discriminate in hiring in her own office and did not support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, now called the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow same-sex couples to be recognized for purposes of immigration.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:26 AM

Minnesotans must ensure it doesn't reappear and succeed.
What a relief it will be if last week's blow to the proposed ban on gay marriage and civil unions turns out to be fatal. And why shouldn't it be? In rejecting a constitutional prohibition on same-sex unions, the Senate Judiciary Committee plainly intended to keep the measure from moving ahead.
But anyone aware of lawmakers' knack for postmidnight ploys knows this amendment may yet rise from its shallow grave and slither its way to a floor vote.
Hence the sense in remaining wary -- and in worrying. Minnesotans should oppose any constitutional amendment that snubs the principles of equality and liberty, as does every scheme to make marriage and civil unions exclusively heterosexual privileges.
Thousands of gay and lesbian couples are raising children in Minnesota. Using the Constitution to deny such families social and legal protections is more than merely unfair; it's destabilizing, demeaning, emotionally damaging and costly -- to parents and kids alike.
But some forms of discrimination are more harmful than others -- which is why it's worth looking hard at the language lawmakers employ to distinguish between the "worthy" and the worthless. As it happens, the proposed amendment shot down by the Senate committee on April 4 would do far more than just keep same-sex couples from sending out wedding invitations. As sponsor Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, noted with pride, the amendment would also prohibit any creation of its legal equivalent.
Indeed, the ultimate goal of Bachmann's broadly worded plan seems to be wholesale sabotage of the welfare and security of gay couples -- and, for that matter, of anyone who falls in love but doesn't marry.
Depending on how courts interpret its language, the amendment could dismantle existing programs that extend employment benefits to both members of a couple in a domestic partnership -- possibly even programs run by private companies. And if experience in other states with similar amendments is any guide, Bachmann's measure could even keep an unmarried couple from enjoying the protection of domestic violence and other basic laws.
What's the point of all this? What problem would it solve, and whom would it help? Minnesotans hold many views about the propriety of same-sex unions -- and they're free to think what they like. But whatever their sentiments about marriage, surely they don't want the state Constitution used as a political weapon or a discriminatory bludgeon. Surely they don't yearn for a society that ostracizes small children just because the two adults who love them most both happen to be women -- or men.
In truth, such families already exist -- and will always exist. What use is it to pretend otherwise?

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 9:23 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 13, 2006 - 12:01 am ET

(Abuja) A proposed law that would impose a prison sentence on same-sex couples who marry has been toughened by the Nigerian Senate to include anyone who attends a gay wedding or is a member of any LGBT organization.
The marriage ban was proposed by President Olusegun Obasanjo and is likely to pass easily, received first reading in the Senate this week.
It would impose a five year sentence on any same-couple who marries or goes abroad to marry. It also bans same-sex couples from living together, wed or not, outlaws adoption by gays and goes so far as to make it a criminal offense to be a member of a gay club, social organization or LGBT civil rights group.
The legislation would also impose a prison term on anyone who attends a same-sex union, witnesses a union or celebrates a ceremony involving gay or lesbian couples.
The bill would include foreigners living in Nigeria - a move that has humanitarian aid organizations concerned.
Gay or lesbian aid workers who go to Nigeria from countries where same-sex marriage is legal would have their passports scrutinized for any indication of their sexuality or marital status.
The ban on membership in gay organizations has raised concerns by human rights groups.
The bill also says that publicity or any public display of "same-sex amorous relationships" including those depicted in the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited under penalty of imprisonment in Nigeria.
The legislation is regarded as the most repressive gay measure in the world.
Last month, before the additional prohibitions were included, and in advance of a state visit to the US by President Obasanjo human rights organizations called for the bill's withdrawal.
In an open letter to Obasanjo the groups, including the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Watch, said the proposed law contravenes international law, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and undermines Nigeria’s struggle to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:41 AM

by Mark Worrall, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
April 12, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal challenging the state's sweeping domestic partner law.
The Court refused to review a Sacramento Court of Appeal January 2006 decision upholding the state’s domestic partnership laws.
The challenge was the second attempt by the conservative group Campaign for California Families to have the law overturned.
The group says the law is equivalent to marriage and therefore violates Proposition 22 - the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The appeals court ruled earlier this year, as it did a year earlier, that Proposition 22's language is clearly limited to "marriage," and that the proposition does not constitute marriage.
“This is another great victory for fairness and equality and the rights of all Californians to protect their families,” said Kate Kendell, Executive Director of The National Center for Lesbian Rights and co-counsel in the case.
“Domestic partnership is not marriage and the Court wisely denied review of misguided and underhanded attempts to distort the language of Proposition 22 and strike down validly enacted legislation that protects lesbian and gay people and their families.”
One final related appeal from the organization remains pending in the Third Appellate District. It is expected that attempt will also fail.
The domestic partner law, which was signed in 2003 by former Gov. Gray Davis took effect Jan. 1, 2004. It grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.
Campaign for California Families also has been pressing for an amendment to the state constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
In December the group conceded that it had not collected enough signatures to have the issue placed on this year's ballot.
The issue of same-sex marriage is before the courts in California and is expected to reach the state Supreme Court next year.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:40 AM

by The Associated Press
April 12, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) A proposal that would give gay couples most of the same rights as married couples under state law was backed by a Senate committee on Wednesday.Supporters stressed that the proposal -- which must be approved by voters this fall -- would not give gay couples all the same rights as married couples because they still wouldn't be entitled to the benefits allowed by federal law. Those include filing joint tax returns or receiving benefits if a partner dies while serving in the military."Right now all we can be under this bill is a domestic partner in Colorado and only in Colorado," said Dan Willis of the Colorado Stonewall Democrats.Willis said he was the surviving partner of a U.S. Army captain but was not eligible to receive death benefits.Carmah Lawler said she and her partner of 28 years have to carry a folder of documents when they travel to prove they medical power of attorney for each other. But she said gays and lesbians can't always protect their rights as couples under state law even if they can afford a lawyer to draw up the papers."We are attempting to address the massive unfairness to the most personal aspects of our lives: health care, insurance, nursing home care, property rights, pensions and protections for our children," she said.Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald asked the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee to amend the proposal (House Bill 1344) to make it clear that a domestic partnership isn't a marriage.The panel also agreed to give adoption agencies the right not to place children with gay couples registered as domestic partners. Recently the issue arose in Massachusetts and Catholic Charities decided to end its adoption program rather than comply with a state law barring discrimination against gays.Fitz-Gerald's proposal already has been backed by the House. If the full Senate supports it, it would be placed on November's ballot.This week Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, and Wilfred Perkins of Colorado Springs filed paperwork proposing an initiative aimed at barring domestic partnerships. The proposal says the state and its subdivisions would be barred from recognizing "a legal status similar to that of marriage."Another group that wants to bar gay marriage already is collecting signatures to place their initiative on the ballot. It would not outlaw domestic partnerships.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:38 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 12, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(Hartford, Connecticut) Gay law students staged a kiss-in Wednesday to protest a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the University of Connecticut.
Members of the Lambda Law Society set up a kissing booth at the front of the school.
"We want to make sure people understand what the concerns are with him, and why his views are particularly offensive," said Colby Smith, who wore an "I Kiss Boys" T-shirt.
Scalia was spirited into the auditorium through a side entrance. If the most conservative member of the high court saw the protest, he did not mention it in his speech.
His address, on constitutional law, featured a defense of his position opposing the overturning of sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas.
Scalia repeated a mantra he has given at other law schools, that judges should not be making new law and that the courts have a right to uphold what he called community morals.
Students attending the lecture were chosen by having their names drawn randomly from a lottery.
"Having a justice visit your campus is exciting no matter what you think about his views," said third-year student Hugo Tomasia of Norwalk, one of those who won a seat for the speech. "I think it's important to hear all kinds of views on important topics."
Scalia, 70, was appointed in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Reagan nominated him four years later to the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the opening that occurred when William Rehnquist became chief justice.
Scalia was one of three justices who dissented in the 2003 Lawrence v Texas ruling that said states cannot make laws regarding the private sexual conduct of Americans.
The others were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:37 AM

By Rebecca Deusser Sentinel & Enterprise Statehouse BureauSentinel & Enterprise
BOSTON -- It was a story of two men named Emile on Beacon Hill Tuesday.
State Rep. Emile Goguen, D-Fitchburg, energized scores of people with a short speech urging the state Judiciary Committee to move forward a petition calling for a statewide vote on gay marriage.
"I urge the committee to take a close look and move this as rapidly as possible," said Goguen, 73, a strong opponent of gay marriage.
Lowell resident Emile Dufour, 69, had a different take on putting gay marriage to a ballot question for November 2008.
"It would be divisive to the community," said Dufour, a gay man who is married to Lowell resident Fred Riley, 73. "For the rest of my life I would have to explain and defend my marriage."
The couple has been together for 19 years.
Lawmakers are slated to vote next month on a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the next required step on the path to a constitutional amendment.
If 50 legislators, 25 percent of the Legislature, approve the measure in two consecutive sessions, the question would go to a ballot vote in 2008.
If approved, the amendment would overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize gay marriage.
The committee hearing Tuesday drew more than 100 people on both sides of the issue, and committee members are expected to recommend whether members of the House and Senate should support the question when they have a joint meeting on May 10.
Supporters of the measure said voters should decide whether the state will continue to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Advocates collected more than 147,000 certified signatures to put the question before lawmakers. They only needed 65,825.
Shari Worthington of Worcester collected hundreds of signatures to support a vote to ban gay marriage.
"Gay marriage is the first volley in a long-term war of anything goes with sexuality," Worthington said.
Opponents to the proposed amendment said gay marriage is a civil rights matter that should not be left up to voters, and revoking the law would cause emotional and financial strain on couples who now receive marriage benefits.
Former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, who testified at the hearing, said he supports civil rights for gay people, and he trusts that a majority of voters do too.
"Let voters have a vote and a voice," Flynn said. "I put my trust and confidence in the residents of Massachusetts."
Lunenburg resident Tom Mason is not willing to take that chance.
Mason's 24-year-old son, Christopher, is gay, and Mason believes he should have the right to marry the person he loves.
"Put civil rights to a vote?" Mason told the Sentinel & Enterprise while he waited to testify. "When (SJC judges) actually ruled to give the same rights to anyone else to get married, it was the greatest day of his life, and mine too. I was proud to be a citizen in Massachusetts."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:34 AM

By Russell Nichols, Globe Staff April 12, 2006
The debate over gay marriage returned to the State House yesterday with supporters and opponents gathering for an emotional hearing on a proposed ban on same-sex nuptials for the 2008 ballot.
Legislators plan to vote on the proposal at a May 10 constitutional convention.
Fifty legislators must vote for the proposal in two legislative sessions to place it on the 2008 ballot.
During a six-hour hearing, supporters of the ban argued that legalized gay marriage undermines the traditional family structure.
Opponents of the ban argued that gay couples should have the same rights and opportunities as straight couples.
They also said a ballot campaign would be divisive.
''I believe that if the Legislature does not vote the amendment down, our state will be subjected to an ugly, protracted fight that will adversely affect the civic and business environment," Robert L. Beal, director of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, told the committee.
Governor Mitt Romney, who is a supporter of the proposal, sent a letter to the committee saying, ''The importance of marriage between mothers and fathers, wives and husbands is so great that we must take whatever action is needed to preserve it, for the sake of our children and our children's children."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 6:33 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 11, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Frankfort, Kentucky) Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher celebrated "Diversity Day" by dropping sexuality from a longstanding executive order that bars discrimination in the public service.
As several hundred school students watched, Fletcher declared Tuesday to be "Diversity Day" and signed a new executive order replacing one signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Paul Patton.
Fletcher told the students that state employees should not be discriminated against because of race, ethnicity, religion or "differences."
He went on to say that the executive order was meant to be an affirmative action policy that sets high goals for the state to have minorities make up at least 10 percent of the government's work force.
But Fletcher's version omits the provision on sexuality that had been a key part of Patton's provision.
The governor later said that he was just following federal non-bias standards, which do not include sexuality.
"It would be very difficult to recruit sexual preference," Fletcher told the Lexington Herald-Leader.
"We have not discriminated against the gay community. We are recruiting affirmative action based on race, ethnicity and gender. I think that's very appropriate."
Nevertheless, in his speech to the students, Fletcher repeatedly hit on the theme of diversity telling them that differences should be celebrated and are important to the state.
"This is such a callous act," Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, the state's only openly gay lawmaker, told reporters.
"There was no need for it. He's singling out a minority of Kentuckians for foul treatment and that is totally unacceptable."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:13 AM

by The Associated Press
April 11, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) The state office that regulates the professional conduct of attorneys won't investigate former state Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz for a conversation with a state senator that might or might not have happened.
Golden Valley attorney Greg Wersal had asked the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility to act after Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson was taped telling a group of pastors that he had assurances from current and former justices that the state law prohibiting gay marriage would withstand legal challenges.
Johnson later apologized for the remarks and said they were embellished, but continued to say that several conversations had happened.
Blatz, who stepped down from the court at the beginning of the year, said she never had a conversation with Johnson about the gay marriage law. But Wersal said she and three sitting justices should be investigated for possible unethical conduct.
Betty Shaw, acting director of the Professional Responsibility office, wrote to Wersal that there wasn't grounds to investigate Blatz since it was unclear if the comments - if they were made at all - happened before or after Blatz left the court.
Shaw also pointed out that both Johnson and Blatz have now denied they ever spoke about the issue. Wersal "acknowledges he has no first-hand additional information," she wrote.
Wersal said he was disappointed with the decision and may appeal it.
"If they don't conduct an investigation, and no one conducts an investigation, we're all going to be sitting here going, 'What really happened?"' he said.
The complaints against the three other justices - Paul Anderson, Russell Anderson and G. Barry Anderson - were filed with the Board on Judicial Standards, which governs sitting judges. Wersal said Tuesday he's yet to get a response from that group.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 11, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Providence, Rhode Island) House leaders are in no rush to vote on a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Rhode Island and attempts to stall the measure are being met with anger from LGBT advocates who released a poll Tuesday showing more people support gay marriage than oppose it.
The House Judiciary Committee last week held a six-hour hearing on the bill, hearing from gay and lesbian couples and their supporters that the denial of marriage rights is adversely affecting their lives.
But this week William J. Murphy the Speaker of the House said that a vote this year is unlikely.
Members of Marriage Equality Rhode Island delivered a 6-foot-by-4-foot poster containing the signatures of nearly 500 people supporting same-sex marriage to Murphy's office.
"Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated that you refuse to bring the marriage bill to a vote because of your personal beliefs on the issue. That is no way to lead," Shannon McCloud, a Marriage Equality Rhode Island member told reporters outside Murphy's office. "I'd rather have an honest up-or-down vote on this bill than the gamesmanship that seems to go on here."
Murphy (D-West Warwick), Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano (D-North Providence), and Governor Carcieri, a Republican, oppose same-sex marriage.
Murphy was not in his office but House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox ( D-Providence) who is openly gay and supports marriage equality inadvertently walked into the news conference.
Asked by reporters about the Speaker's position he declined to state publicly whether a vote on the House floor should be held.
"I reserve comment at this point. Discussions have to take place," is all Fox would say on the issue.
A new poll released Tuesday by Marriage Equality shows that 45 percent of voters support same-sex marriage while 39 percent are opposed. Sixteen percent had no opinion or refused to answer.
The poll, taken for the advocacy group by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, also shows that marriage is low on the list of priorities for voters.
Only five percent said it was a major issue while 41 percent named health care as a prime issue and 40 percent cited education.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:11 AM

Wednesday, April 12, 2006
By Sharon EmeryLansing Bureau
LANSING -- Everyone agrees that Michigan voters definitely wanted to ban same-sex marriage when they decided in 2004 to restrict marriage solely to relationships involving one man and one woman.
It's just how far they meant that constitutional prohibition to extend that's the question.
The issue argued in the Michigan Court of Appeals Tuesday, and likely to ultimately be heard by the state's Supreme Court, is whether public employers such as the University of Michigan and the city of Kalamazoo are violating that ban when they offer same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples.
Eric Restuccia, arguing the case offered by Attorney General Mike Cox, says they are.
"The analysis begins and ends with the words of the amendment," specifically, the phrase "or similar union for any purpose," Restuccia told the three-judge panel.
By extending benefits usually reserved for spouses and children to same-sex partners and no one else, employers recognize "a similar union ... for the purpose of conferring health benefits," he said.
But Deborah LaBelle, arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and representing 21 Michigan couples in the case, National Pride at Work v. Granholm, said eligibility for health benefits does not elevate the status of same-sex relationships to that of marriage.
"There are no rights, duties or responsibilities" conferred when health benefits are provided to domestic partners, LaBelle said. "It's simply a relationship."
Judge Joel Hoekstra asked LaBelle whether the declaration of a domestic partnership required by most employers offering the benefits constituted "recognition" of the union and therefore made it equivalent to marriage.
She answered much the way A.T. Miller, a plaintiff in the case, did on the steps of the Hall of Justice following the morning session.
Equating a domestic partner certificate with a marriage license is "a ridiculous comparison," said Miller, coordinator of Multicultural Teaching and Learning at the University of Michigan. "It's just a piece of paper. It's like going to city hall to pick up a bike tag," there are no legal rights awarded similar to those of marriage, he said.
Also hearing the case were Judges Kurtis Wilder and Brian Zahra. A spokeswoman for the court said she had no timetable as to when the judges might rule.
Gloria Hage, representing U-M and Wayne State University, said requiring employers to offer benefits beyond domestic partners would drive up the cost of insurance premiums and throw other benefits, such as rights to married housing, in question.
"To interpret this to go beyond the legal definition of marriage ... will leave universities to guess how to design our benefits package ... How wide do we have to cast the net?" she asked.
Ingham Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk ruled in September that same-sex benefits offered by public employers do not violate Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage because the benefits are a condition of employment, not of marriage.
Draganchuk's ruling overturned a March 2005 opinion by Cox that such benefits were unconstitutional under the amendment. Cox appealed and was granted a stay of Draganchuk's decision until a higher court could rule.
Whatever the Court of Appeals decision, it's likely to be appealed. In closing Tuesday's hearing, Hoekstra said he and the other judges would give the case "careful consideration on its way to the Supreme Court."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:09 AM

Posted on Tue, Apr. 11, 2006

Associated Press
MINNEAPOLIS - The congregation of a Minneapolis church has voted that the church stop performing civil marriages because such marriages aren't accessible to gay couples.
"I will officiate at only religious marriages for same and opposite gender couples alike. I will no longer sign marriage licenses as an agent of the state of Minnesota, until the state of Minnesota recognizes the loving commitment of all couples," said Pastor Don Portwood of the Lyndale United Church of Christ.
The vote makes the church the second in the state to refuse to perform civil marriages. White Bear Unitarian Universalist church made a similar stand a few years ago.
They join a small group of churches across the country that won't perform the civil marriage ceremony for male-female couples because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:07 AM

TheBostonChannel.com

Lawmakers Prepare For Marriage Amendment Vote
POSTED: 1:20 pm EDT April 11, 2006
UPDATED: 2:42 pm EDT April 11, 2006
BOSTON -- Paul McMahon met Ralph Hodgdon in New York's Central Park on a May Sunday in 1955, and the couple quickly moved in together. Nearly 50 years later the two waited outside Cambridge City Hall on another May morning to become one of the first gay couples in Massachusetts to obtain a marriage certificate.
On Wednesday, McMahon and Hodgdon joined scores of activists on both sides of the contentious gay marriage issue to tell their stories to a key legislative committee.
"The energy was so great we thought we've been together so long, why not do it," said McMahon, 73, of the decision to join the crowd outside Cambridge City Hall on the day same-sex marriage became legal. "It was such a positive experience. It sounds corny, but to legalize it made it more acceptable to people who are uptight about homosexuality."
Lawmakers are gearing up to vote next month on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex unions. If approved by 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions, the question would go to voters in 2008.
The amendment, which would define marriage as the union of a man and woman, seeks to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark 2003 ruling that the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marriage licenses. Massachusetts is the only state to recognize gay marriage.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to recommend whether lawmakers should support or oppose the amendment when it comes May 10 before the joint meeting of the House and Senate.
Worcester mother Shari Worthington urged the panel to support the proposed amendment. Worthington said gay marriage is weakening morals in Massachusetts and could lead to an inevitable loosening of sexual restraints.
"Gay marriage is simply the first volley in a longer term war when it comes to making anything goes when it comes to sexuality," Worthington said.
Gov. Mitt Romney, who is weighing a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, also urged lawmakers to put the question on the ballot.
Romney said it would be "deeply misguided to become indifferent to what constitutes marriage, as the court and the activists who support its decision are asking us to do."
"In creating a right to same-sex marriage, the court imposed a sweeping change on our society, unsupported by history or precedent, without any attempt to consider the views of the citizens," Romney said in a letter to the committee chairmen.
Supporters of the question said it's only fair to let voters decide the issue. They collected more than 147,000 certified signatures in support of the question. They needed only 65,825.
Massachusetts Family Institute President Kris Mineau, one of the leaders of the signature drive, said defining marriage as the union of a man and woman strengthens traditional Judeo-Christian values.
"Regardless of how to personally feel about the definition of marriage, the people have earned the right to vote," Mineau said.
Jim Campbell, 58, of Boston, said the chance to marry his partner Jeff Sutlin, 45, has transformed their lives. Campbell is HIV-positive and said the possibility of marriage has helped give him the strength to battle the disease.
"You have no idea what marriage has done to our community," Campbell said. "It has let us bring our heads above water. We're not afraid to hold hands in public. We are legitimate couples."
Although the couple hasn't completed their marriage plans, one decision was made for them: it will have to be in Massachusetts.
"We joked about eloping, but there's no place to elope to out there," Campbell said. "This is it folks."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:06 AM

11-Apr-06
PinkNews.co.uk writer
A Federal Government backbencher has called on Prime Minister John Howard to review his opposition to gay relationships.West Australian Liberal MP, Judi Moylan suggested the government should examine ways of ending same sex discrimination in areas like tax and pensions. Prime Minister John Howard has vowed to block Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legislation which would give gay couples equal marriage rights.Ms Moylan, the MP for Leichhardt said gay couples should be treated fairly and equally and it was time to look at the legal discrimination they faceHer views were supported by fellow Liberal MP Warren Entsch, a former crocodile hunter, he said: "If I was a gay activist, people would say, 'Oh, just another bloody fairy out there trying to push his own agenda', but because of my background people are a little bit puzzled by it and sitting up and listening.“I'm arguing and I argue very strongly that there should be legal recognition for inter-dependency, if you like, whether it be a civil union or whatever.”

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:04 AM

By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer April 11, 2006
BOSTON --Paul McMahon met Ralph Hodgdon in New York's Central Park on a May Sunday in 1955, and the couple quickly moved in together. Nearly 50 years later the two waited outside Cambridge City Hall on another May morning to become one of the first gay couples in Massachusetts to obtain a marriage certificate.
On Wednesday, McMahon and Hodgdon joined scores of activists on both sides of the contentious gay marriage issue to tell their stories to a key legislative committee.
"The energy was so great we thought we've been together so long, why not do it," said McMahon, 73, of the decision to join the crowd outside Cambridge City Hall on the day same-sex marriage became legal. "It was such a positive experience. It sounds corny, but to legalize it made it more acceptable to people who are uptight about homosexuality."
Lawmakers are gearing up to vote next month on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions. If approved by 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions, the question would go to voters in 2008.
The amendment, which would define marriage as the union of a man and woman, seeks to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark 2003 ruling that the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marriage licenses. Massachusetts is the only state to recognize gay marriage.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to recommend whether lawmakers should support or oppose the amendment when it comes May 10 before the joint meeting of the House and Senate.
Shari Worthington of Worcester urged the panel to support the proposed amendment. Worthington said gay marriage is weakening morals in Massachusetts and could lead to an inevitable loosening of sexual restraints.
"Gay marriage is simply the first volley in a longer term war when it comes to making anything goes when it comes to sexuality," Worthington said.
Gov. Mitt Romney, who is weighing a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, also urged lawmakers to put the question on the ballot.
Romney said it would be "deeply misguided to become indifferent to what constitutes marriage, as the court and the activists who support its decision are asking us to do."
"In creating a right to same-sex marriage, the court imposed a sweeping change on our society, unsupported by history or precedent, without any attempt to consider the views of the citizens," Romney said in a letter to the committee chairmen.
Legislative leaders may opt to immediately postpone debate when they meet on May 10.
One factor in that decision is a pending lawsuit before the SJC by opponents of the proposed amendment seeking to block it from the ballot. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 4.
The lawsuit argues the state Constitution bars citizen-initiated amendments relating to "the reversal of a judicial decision." Supporters of the question say it simply defines marriage.
Supporters of the question said it's only fair to let voters decide the issue. They collected more than 147,000 certified signatures in support of the question. They needed only 65,825.
Massachusetts Family Institute President Kris Mineau, one of the leaders of the signature drive, said defining marriage as the union of a man and woman strengthens traditional Judeo-Christian values.
"Regardless of how to personally feel about the definition of marriage, the people have earned the right to vote," Mineau said.
Jim Campbell, 58, of Boston, said the chance to marry his partner Jeff Sutlin, 45, has transformed their lives. Campbell is HIV-positive and said the possibility of marriage has helped give him the strength to battle the disease.
"You have no idea what marriage has done to our community," Campbell said. "It has let us bring our heads above water. We're not afraid to hold hands in public. We are legitimate couples."
Although the couple hasn't completed their marriage plans, one decision was made for them: it will have to be in Massachusetts.
"We joked about eloping, but there's no place to elope to out there," Campbell said. "This is it folks."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 10, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Richmond, Virginia) Virginia Governor Tim Kaine announced Monday he will not sign a bill that puts a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the fall ballot.
But it will not prevent the measure from going to voters in November. Kaine said that he will allow the bill to take force without his signature.He made his intentions clear in a statement that was issued by his office. "I urge other Virginians to vote against it as well," the governor's statement said.
The move was not surprising. Kaine opposes same-sex marriage but has said on numerous occasions that amending the constitution is not warranted.
Virginia law already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Proponents say the constitutional amendment will make it clear that Virginia doesn't have to recognize gay marriages and same-sex civil commitments from other states.
The proposed amendment passed in January on a 28 - 11 vote after little debate. The House of Delegates overwhelmingly approved the measure the same month.
Opponents argue that amendment is discriminatory and could have broad unintended consequences for all unmarried couples, gay or straight.
The conservative Family Foundation, a key supporter of the amendment, criticized Kaine's refusal to sign the enabling legislation.
"It is disappointing that a governor who has spoken so eloquently about his faith has chosen to break his campaign promise," said Victoria Cobb, the foundation's president.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:06 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 10, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(New York City) The number of churches leaving the United Church of Christ over the denomination's support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues continues to grow.
So far more than 50 churches have left the faith. That number is relatively small, leaders of the Church say, and represents less than one percent of the UCC's 5,725 churches.
The latest to disaffiliate is Shepherd of the Hills United Church of Christ in Bechtelsville, Pennsylvania.
"We believe a marriage is between one man and one woman," said Keith Leonard, president of the church consistory.
"Our name will remain Shepherd of the Hills Church, with additional designation to be determined," Leonard told worshippers during Sunday's service. "We will continue to withhold monies from the UCC Conference and General Synod and continue to redirect those to local charities."
Last July the UCC General Synod voted to endorse same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination in the country to do so.
After debating the issue for about an hour, at the annual meeting in Atlanta, about 80 percent of the nearly 1,000 delegates voted to approve the resolution.
Even though some churches are leaving the denomination over gay marriage, other churches are affiliating with the liberal-leaning UCC.
The church says that 23 new congregations affiliated with the UCC during 2005 and an additional 42 churches have expressed a "firm interest" in joining.
Two television commercials featuring gay congregants have met with opposition from networks.
This month the newest 30-second commercial was rejected by CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and WB and cable networks, mainly owned or associated with NBC and CBS, including MTV which owns gay network LOGO, turned down the spot. MTV said the commercial could "be deemed as disparaging to another religion."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:04 AM

by Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com New York Bureau
April 10, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(New York City) The majority of people across New York State support same-sex marriage according to a new poll released Monday.
The survey shows that 53 percent of prospective voters support marriage equality for gays and lesbians, while 38 percent do not.
The poll was conducted by Global Strategy Group in March for Empire State Pride Agenda, the state's largest LGBT civil rights organization and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percent.
It is the third Global Strategy poll for Pride Agenda and shows as New Yorkers continue to become aware of gay and lesbian families support for same-sex marriage grows. An identical poll in 2004 found 47 percent in favor of marriage equality with 46 percent against.
The new survey also is consistent with recent polls in New Jersey and California.
A Zogby poll in New Jersey for Garden State Equality found that 56 percent of those surveyed favor marriage equality while only 39 percent said they believe marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples.
In California a Field Poll found that although a slight majority of people still believe same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry the gap is narrowing and a majority said that gay and lesbian couples should have some sort of legal protections.
The New York survey also found that nearly 60 percent of those questioned believe out-of-state same-sex marriages should be recognized and that politicians supporting gay marriage would likely not face opposition when they come up for re-election.
"New Yorkers have been thinking through this issue for three years now," said Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle.
"They’ve seen our families; they know we’re in loving, committed relationships and that many of us are raising children. They’ve heard how our families are harmed by the discriminatory denial of marriage and they’re moving to support us."
Next month, New York State's highest court will hear a legal challenge to prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Oral arguments will be made on May 31. The case involves five gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City. The couples are represented by Lambda Legal.
Last December an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that found the ban on gay marriage was illegal.
In Lambda's written brief to the high court it states, in part, that, "This appeal is about far more than abstract legal principles. At heart, it concerns real New York families who share the same love and day-to-day journey together through life that binds married couples."
Two other cases involving gay marriage are in lower courts in the state.
The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a similar case in February and the high court in the state of Washington heard arguments last year. Decisions in both states could come at any time.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

by The Associated Press
April 10, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) Although the state Legislature repealed a ban on gay adoptions in 1999, gay parents in some counties cannot adopt a partner's children because of varying interpretations of the law by probate judges.
Single men and women, gay or straight, are allowed to adopt children in all counties under state law.
Probate court judges in Hillsborough, Merrimack, Grafton and Cheshire counties do not allow gay or lesbian couples to adopt children together or allow one to adopt the child of the other, because the law specifies that married couples and single adults can adopt. Gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry in New Hampshire.
In the state's other six counties, judges have interpreted adoption law and court rulings more broadly to allow adoptions by gay and lesbian partners, as long as they can show they have a stable and loving home.
"I think all judges in good faith are trying to interpret the statute correctly," said Probate Judge Richard Hampe, who sits in Merrimack County. "It's just that the statute is not all that clear. It really should be resolved."
According to the Concord Monitor, there are no bills pending to clarify the law. In fact, several lawmakers who oversee adoption laws told the newspaper they had no idea gay couples were being treated differently depending on where they live.
Nor has anyone appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Betsy Peabody, of Concord, said she and her partner of 13 years, Dianne Harhigh, considered an appeal, but were afraid the high court would uphold Hampe's ruling that Peabody, the birth mother, would have to give up her parental rights before Harhigh could adopt. The couple's daughter is almost 5 years old.
"For a long time when the law (banning gay adoptions) was overturned, there was a lot of talk about how awesome that was," Peabody said. "That was going to be the door in for our kids having two legal parents. But (it) doesn't apply to two-parent adoptions."
Judges on both sides of the question point to a 1987 state Supreme Court ruling by former state Justice David Souter, who ruled a divorced couple living in separate homes could not adopt a child together because the adoption law is intended to give children one home "that is unified and stable."
"Respect for such intent precludes our reading (the law) so as to authorize a joint adoption application from two unmarried adults," Souter wrote.
Judge John Maher, head of the state's probate courts, said he will allow unmarried couples to adopt a child jointly, or allow one partner to adopt the child of the other partner, as long as an independent home study concludes the child will be in a safe, stable and loving environment.
"Whether they are homosexual or heterosexual is irrelevant to me," Maher said.
Lawyer Susan Hassan, who represented Peabody and Harhigh, said when her clients live in counties that do not allow gay couples to have equal parental rights, she advises them to pursue joint guardianship.
Guardianship gives both partners equal parental rights in case of a split and it is recognized in all 10 counties. But adoptions give children additional rights to share disability, health and inheritance benefits with both parents.
Lawyer Ann McLane Kuster said adoptions also provide children with more stability.
"Guardianships come and go," she said. "The court can change guardianship, but not adoption."
Harhigh, who quit her job to raise the couple's daughter, said the family finds guardianship offensive. The couple must file a report with the Merrimack County Probate Court each year showing they are giving their daughter a good home.
"I can raise my daughter, but I can't adopt her," Harhigh said. "I could adopt a stranger, but not my daughter."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:01 AM

Group Delivers Poster To Speaker's Office
POSTED: 5:36 pm EDT April 10, 2006
UPDATED: 6:11 pm EDT April 10, 2006
PROVIDENCE -- Supporters of same-sex marriage on Monday put pressure on Rhode Island lawmakers to vote on a marriage equality bill.
NBC 10's Bill Rappleye reported that a small group of gay-marriage advocates carried a poster to the House speaker's office that they said was signed by 500 people in support of a vote on a same-sex marriage bill.
Same-sex marriage bills have been introduced in the General Assembly almost every year for the past 10 years. None has ever gotten as far as a vote in committee.
Supporters of same-sex marriage said they know a vote is not a guarantee of success.
"We know equal marriage may not become law this year. But just because we've got more work to do doesn't mean that the legislative process should stop here," said Lauren Nocera of Marriage Equality Rhode Island. "A vote says our democracy is working, that we matter, (that) we are part of a government that respects its people and works for them."
A committee is scheduled to hear the bill Tuesday afternoon, but it's not clear if the committee will vote on it.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:59 AM

April 11, 2006
Legislation introduced in the U.S House of Representatives last week would amend the Social Security Act to afford same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as others who pay into Social Security. The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term "permanent partner" to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms "husband" and "wife," which are already present in the legal code.
"Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to," said Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who authored the bill. "The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry—but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all."
Nadler's bill does not address same-sex marriage but does provide gay and lesbian couples with some of the benefits married couples enjoy under the Social Security system. Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do.
"I've heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don't want to discriminate against the LGBT community," Nadler said. "If they truly don't want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it. Same-sex couples pay the same taxes as married couples, and they deserve the same Social Security benefits as everyone else."
Recognizing that the elderly often face difficulty maintaining their standard of living after a partner dies, the bill would also entitle elderly same-sex couples to the survivor benefits offered by Social Security to heterosexual widows and widowers.
Seventeen members of Congress have cosponsored Nadler's resolution: representatives Tammy Baldwin, Howard Berman, John Conyers, Joseph Crowley, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Raúl Grijalva, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey. (The Advocate)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:57 AM

04.10.06 By David Mariner
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community leaders praised Russell Feingold, following the announcement of his full support of marriage equality for same sex couples. Feingold becomes the fourth U.S. senator to support marriage equality, along with Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

"Senator Feingold's public support for marriage fairness is the type of leadership this country so desperately needs and deserves," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

Jo Wyrick, Interim Executive Director of the National Stonewall Democrats stated: "Senator Feingold understands that religious institutions should have the freedom to marry adherents according to their interpretation of their faith, and not the dictates of politicians. American families will be strengthened by tasking couples with the legal responsibilities that come through civil marriage. Americans are quickly moving towards full support for marriage equality, and we are seeing a new generation of Democrats emerge"

According to the National Stonewall Democrats, the platforms of state Democratic parties of California, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Washington State call for full marriage equality for same-sex couples. Numerous county and local Democratic parties have also called for marriage equality, as have Democratic organizations like the College Democrats and Young Democrats of America. For the first time, 2006 will also see Democratic gubernatorial nominees champion full marriage equality in California, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon.

Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force stated: Senator Feingold's announcement today is more than an important step forward in the struggle for equal rights. At long last, progressive and fair-minded Americans have a leader taking the ethically and morally correct stand for marriage equality — no equivocation, waffling or hairsplitting."
In recognition of Feingold's announcement, the Task Force will present its 2006 National Leadership Award to the senator at its national dinner in Washington, D.C., on May 6, 2006.
Feingold has also been recognized for his leadership HIV/AIDS in the Senate. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee on Africa, Feingold has gained firsthand knowledge of the scourge of AIDS in his many visits to that continent. It was the domestic AIDS crisis, however, that brought Feingold to Madison recently, to serve as keynote speaker at the annual AIDS Network Banquet.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 7:55 AM

by The Associated Press
April 9, 2006 - 4:00 pm ET

(Madison, Wisconsin) Religious groups claim in a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin that they are being wrongly excluded from a program that allows state employees to make payroll deductions to charities.The lawsuit challenges rules that require the charities receiving donations to pledge not to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation in hiring staff and accepting members.The Association of Faith-based Organizations claims in the lawsuit filed in Dane County the rule discriminates against groups that require employees, board members and volunteers to share their religious beliefs. Some of them believe homosexuality is a sin.Steven Aden, a lawyer for the Virginia-based group, said the Wisconsin lawsuit is the first of several across the country that will challenge similar state-run charity programs.He said the rules allow environmental groups receiving donations to require that their leaders be environmentalists, "but if you're a religious group you cannot require your employees and your volunteers to share your faith? It cuts against religious groups directly."The lawsuit claims the Christian Legal Society was excluded from the program last year after refusing to adopt a statement promising not to discriminate on the basis of religion. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes was also deemed ineligible, partly for the same reason, the suit claims.The lawsuit asks a judge to declare the rule unconstitutional and allow religious groups to participate in this year's campaign.The 33-year-old charity campaign allows state employees to automatically donate part of their paychecks to charities approved by the Department of Administration. Last year more than 400 charities were eligible.The lawsuit names state employees on a committee that determines eligibility for the program and Department of Administration Secretary Stephen Bablitch, who makes the final decisions.A controversy erupted over the program in 2001 after a group of state employees and the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue to stop donations to groups that discriminate against gays and lesbians. The employees claimed such donations violated a state law outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.But then-Gov. Scott McCallum and Republican lawmakers criticized a proposal requiring charities to adopt the nondiscrimination statement. They said it would shut out groups such as the Boy Scouts of America, which did not allow gay men to become troop leaders.The Department of Administration tried to reach a compromise in 2002 by adopting rules that allow employees to donate to the Boy Scouts while creating a new standard for groups to meet if they did not have policies banning discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion and other factors. The standard was patterned after a U.S. Supreme Court decision.Aden said the rules essentially carved out an exemption for the Boy Scouts but continued to allow discrimination against religious groups.Administration spokesman Scott Larrivee said the agency was still reviewing the lawsuit and had no immediate comment. Rachel Meek, chairwoman of the eligibility committee, said she had not seen the lawsuit either.Meek said the committee was in the process of determining which charities will be eligible this year. She said two groups were excluded during a meeting last month because they refused to adopt the nondiscrimination statement, but she would not name them."We are not in the business of trying to exclude any organization," she said. "We give them every chance to meet the rules so that they can be included in the campaign."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:39 AM

Boyer Jarvis
Salt Lake Tribune
It is worth remembering that our Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776, declared "that all Men are created equal." Not until the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, were women eligible to vote throughout the United States of America. It is also worth remembering that our U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, provided that in the census each Negro slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person. The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, outlawed slavery in the United States, and the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted to all citizens the right to "equal protection of the laws." Nowhere in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is there a reference to sexual orientation. The women's campaign for the right to vote went on for more than 70 years before that goal was achieved. The long road from slavery to full equality in American society is still being traveled by people of African descent. The place of homosexuals in American life was mostly in dark shadows until the Stonewall Riot in New York City in 1969. In less than 50 years, various organizations in support of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been established. Many of the nation's major corporations, including some located in Utah, have adopted policies granting health insurance coverage and other benefits for partners of homosexual employees that are comparable to the benefits provided for the spouses and children of heterosexual employees. For far too long, deep-seated biases against homosexuals have been handed down from generation to generation. Just as the Bible was cited in defense of slavery, it now is cited against our homosexual brothers and sisters. However, if the teachings of Jesus are allowed to prevail, we are all equal in the eyes of God. Gradually, more and more people of good will are becoming liberated from the anti-homosexual attitudes they were taught in childhood. It is becoming easier for many gays and lesbians openly to acknowledge their sexual orientation to themselves, their friends and their families. But formidable obstacles remain in the road to full equality in civil society for homosexuals. In November 2004 approximately two-thirds of Utah voters approved a state constitutional marriage amendment denying homosexuals access to marriage and the rights and protections attached to marriage. On the other hand, I find encouragement in the fact that nearly one-third of the voters rejected Amendment 3. (The final count was: Yes, 254,645; No, 121,360.) Unless one believes there were 121,360 homosexual voters in the 2004 election, it seems reasonable to conclude that there were many thousands of "gay friendly" heterosexual voters in 2004. Which brings me to this appeal to all "gay friendly" Utah citizens: Please "come out" publicly in favor of full citizenship for all law-abiding homosexuals. Let your neighbors know that you support equal rights (not "special rights") for everyone. Like most other heterosexuals, I cannot explain why I turned out this way. Only vaguely do I remember when I became aware that there is another version of humanity. For all of my adult life I have tried to make available to others - women, African Americans, Greeks, Mexicans, etc. - all the opportunities and protections that I, male with northern European ancestors, have simply taken for granted. To the many other similarly situated male citizens of Utah, I say: Please help to make the playing field level for everyone. Remember, "Someone you know and love is gay." --- Boyer Jarvis, professor of communication emeritus at the University of Utah, lives in Salt Lake City.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:38 AM

By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS, The Virginian-Pilot©
April 9, 2006 Last updated: 10:41 PM
RICHMOND - Just a few years ago, Virginia's gay-rights movement was too small and loosely organized to put up much of a fight when confronted with new restrictions on same-sex couples.
Advocates are determined to prove that's no longer the case.
More than 1,300 people on Saturday evening launched a campaign to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. The question will be on the ballot in November.
The campaign attracted two major supporters in its inaugural event.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine did not attend but sent a letter saying he will vote against the amendment and urging voters to do the same.
Former U.S. Sen. Charles Robb gave the keynote speech.
The Weinstein family , owners of a Richmond real estate company , pledged to donate $100,000 to the campaign, as did an anonymous gay couple.
Equality Virginia, a gay-rights group based in Richmond, raised an additional $200,000 at the event.
It has promised to spend $750,000 on the campaign and has begun door-to-door education drives in Norfolk, Virginia Beach and other cities .
The group is joined by the interfaith People of Faith for Equality in Virginia and
the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance in an umbrella campaign organization called The Commonwealth Coalition.
Ann Hageman, Hampton Roads community action team coordinator for the campaign, said the region is receptive to arguments against the amendment. Equality Virginia reports 1,596 members in the five cities of South Hampton Roads.
"People keep telling me it's so closeted and so military, but the more I do outreach, the more I realize that's just not true," Hageman said.
"This amendment is everyone's issue," she added, "and if people take the time to educate themselves on what the implications are, most Virginians will agree it's discrimination in its ugliest form."
Opponents argue that the amendment is worded so broadly that it could interfere with same-sex couples' ability to enter child-custody agreements or make end-of-life decisions.
"Nobody knows what this thing will do," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, the coalition's campaign manager.
Gastanaga said the campaign will emphasize that there has been no effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Virginia.
"Same-sex marriage has been against the law for 30 years in Virginia," she said. "Civil unions have been against the law for three years. Rejecting the constitutional amendment does not change the status quo in Virginia one iota."
Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake , one of the state lawmakers who sponsored legislation setting up the referendum, said opponents warned of unintended consequences three years ago when the General Assembly passed a law banning civil unions.
He said no problems have been created by that law, and the amendment will ensure that it is not overturned in the future by a court challenge.
"Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that's the way it's always been and that's the way it should be in Virginia," Cosgrove said.
The campaign in favor of the amendment is being organized by Family Foundation Action, a Richmond nonprofit group. The group launched a Web site last summer and has begun mobilizing volunteers and church groups.
"We're very confident the voters of Virginia understand the value of marriage," said Victoria Cobb, the group's president .
She noted that 19 states have already passed amendments to their constitutions banning same-sex marriage. Virginia is one of 12 states scheduled to hold referendums this year.
Gay-rights advocates say they remain hopeful that Virginia will be the first state to reject a constitutional ban.
Equality Virginia has rapidly become a political force in the state.
In the past three years, its membership has grown from 1,500 to more than 12,000, said executive director Dyana Mason.
The group now has five full-time employees and its own political action committee, which gave more than $11,000 to legislative candidates last year.
Mason said the group's rapid growth is partly a result of the Assembly's passage of the ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.
"It helped people realize they couldn't just sit back and do nothing," she said. "I know whatever happens this year, we will be stronger."
Reach Christina Nuckols at (804) 697-1562 or christina.nuckols@pilotonline.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:32 AM

April 10, 2006
White House Letter
New York Times
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON — It had to happen: Washington's culture wars have now reached the Easter Bunny.
Some 200 gay families are planning to attend the annual White House Easter Egg Roll next Monday to showcase themselves to the nation and President Bush. But some religious conservatives say the families are "crashing" the public event and exploiting children for political ends.
"We're not protesting the president's policies on gay families," said Jennifer Chrisler, the executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, the organizer of the gay families attending the event. "We are, however, helping him understand that gay families exist in this country and deserve the rights and protections that all families need."
Not so, said Mark D. Tooley, the director of the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, an influential conservative group.
"It's facetious and not very persuasive for Family Pride to say they're not making a political statement," Mr. Tooley said in an interview last week. In the conservative Weekly Standard magazine in January, Mr. Tooley called the gay families crashers and surmised that President Rutherford B. Hayes, who held the first public White House Easter egg roll in 1878, never would have imagined the controversy the event was stirring up more than a century later.
The current hostess of the egg roll, Laura Bush, has adopted a neutral position. "All families are welcome to attend the Easter Egg Roll, provided they comply with the rules," Susan Whitson, Mrs. Bush's press secretary, said on Friday. "No more than two adults per group, and at least one child under the age of 8."
Ms. Whitson would not answer questions about how Mrs. Bush felt personally about the attendance of the gay families, who said they would wear rainbow leis to distinguish themselves. But in the past, the first lady has readily responded to queries about whether she and the president have gay friends. "Sure, of course, everyone does," Mrs. Bush said in an interview in 2004.
It is the president's public position that has gay groups upset. In 2004, Mr. Bush threw his support behind a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a stance that evangelical Christians say motivated them to turn out at the polls and that many Republicans say helped Mr. Bush win a second term. Since his re-election, Mr. Bush has said little about same-sex marriage, although at a news conference last month he affirmed that "society's interest" was met by "defining marriage as between a man and a woman."
Last year, Mr. Bush upset gay parents even more when he said in an interview with The New York Times that while "children can receive love from gay couples," he believed that "studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman." Afterward, experts across the political spectrum countered that there was no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples did any worse — socially, academically or emotionally — than their peers raised in more traditional households.
Ms. Chrisler of Family Pride said the idea for attending the Easter egg roll came from two of the organization's members in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn. In 2005, the members, Colleen Gillespie, a research professor at New York University, and Alisa Surkis, a computer programmer and a writer, took their daughter, Ella, 3, to Washington for the event. Like the rest of the public, Ms. Gillespie went to the Ellipse and stood in line through the night to get free, timed-entry tickets from the National Park Service for the roll. The two were disappointed when heavy rains forced the park service to close the event 15 minutes before their entry time.
They vowed to return the next year, in a group with Family Pride. "It was really about wanting to at some core level stake our right to participate in this great, historic tradition," Ms. Gillespie said.
The roll has not been without controversy in the past. Its beginnings represent a literal fight over turf: egg rolls were held on the grounds of the Capitol until 1876, when the children made such a mess that Congress passed the Turf Protection Law to prohibit the use of the area as a playground. The roll was rained out in 1877 but in 1878, depending on the version of the story, children either stormed the White House gates demanding to be let in or Hayes voluntarily opened up the South Lawn.
In 1953, Mamie Eisenhower asked why black children were looking through the gates at the white children rolling eggs inside, and the following year she insisted that blacks be included. In the Reagan years, Ursula Meese, the wife of Attorney General Edwin Meese III, appeared at six egg rolls as the Easter bunny.
This year the White House is expecting the usual 16,000 guests and dyeing 14,200 eggs (off-site, because the White House kitchen is too small) for a Disneyland-like event that will feature book readings by Mrs. Bush, probably an appearance by the president, an egg hunt, an old-fashioned roll with spoons and a certain frantic air.
"It was an experience that you wouldn't want to miss, but it was absolutely exhausting and everyone was thrilled when it was over," said Bruce Reed, President Bill Clinton's domestic policy adviser, who took his two children to seven of eight egg rolls. "It's not the first thing I'd put on the list of the American dream, but people who want to be there bad enough should have the chance to go."
Yet as Mr. Reed, the president of the Democratic Leadership Council, noted in his blog, The Has-Been on Slate.com, "Like most Americans, I don't have an egg in this hunt."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:31 AM

KATRINA A. JACKSON
Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Black leaders, including those in the church, have an obligation to oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in South Carolina, the Rev. Nelson B. Rivers III, chief operating officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said Saturday.
"This is not about sexual orientation or about a lifestyle, this is about fairness and equality," Nelson said during an event sponsored by the South Carolina Progressive Network.
Around 200 people attended the group's Democracy Day event, which focused a variety of topics including immigration, education and same sex marriage.
"Equality is what we must stand on. We cannot be afraid and surrender the higher ground for moral principal," said Rivers, who encouraged the crowd to see the debate as a civil rights issue.
The position could put Rivers in conflict with some black church leaders who think marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
Voters will decide in November whether the state Constitution should be changed to ban same-sex marriages.
State law already bars same-sex unions, but supporters say a constitutional ban is needed because a court ruling could trump the law and force South Carolina to recognize same-sex unions from other states.
Those who oppose it feel the amendment will deny gay Americans their rights.
Ohio has not been able to prosecute domestic violence cases in same-sex partnerships since they passed a similar amendment, said Donna Dewitt, co-chairwoman of the South Carolina Progressive Network.
"Also, recognizing insurance for the partners has been a problem in that state. So it is an amendment that will impact families," Dewitt said.
Brett Bursey, director of the state Progressive Network, said the group has launched a campaign to educate the public on the implications of the amendment.
"It's a mean-spirited, get-out-to-vote ploy," said Bursey, "I don't think many people understand what the amendment will do. It's discriminatory against families."
Rivers, who also spoke on immigration and education, encouraged the crowd to fight against all forms of discrimination, including that against Hispanics and the poor.
He says discrimination is the reason South Carolina requires only a minimally adequate education.
"I think they intentionally don't educate all their children," Rivers said, "And I think the motive is race, economics and greed. The three of those become a grand conspiracy against the public schools in this state."
Jim Campbell, 80, traveled from Charleston to attend the event. He said America is a country of immigrants and should not create laws to "keep people out."
"It's like the country doesn't learn," Campbell said. "It has a congenital experience with African Americans as the first undocumented workers who were brought here against their will. Now at this stage of our history they're saying they want to kick people out."
America's greed and selfishness often overcomes its policies and principles, Rivers said.
"America has benefited from God's good graces, from a land rich in natural resources," he said. "But instead of showing God honor by honoring his land and his people, America is a greedy and selfishness nation. But democracy is more than a slogan."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:17 AM

By the Associated Press
April 8 2006
RICHMOND, Va. -- More than 1,300 people attended a dinner Saturday night, signalling that there is significant support for a campaign to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in Virginia. Among the supporters for the campaign are former Sen. Charles Robb, who was the keynote speaker, and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who did not attend but sent a letter saying he will vote against the proposed amendment and urging voters to follow his lead. Virginia is one of 12 states scheduled to put referendums banning same-sex marriage before voters in November. Two families pledged to donate $100,000 each to the campaign, and gay-rights group Equality Virginia raised another $200,000. It has promised to spend $750,000 in its bid to defeat the proposed amendment, and has the support of several other groups. Among them, the interfaith People of Faith for Equality in Virginia and the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance are partners in The Commonwealth Coalition, which supporters claim is about much more than same-sex marriage. Equality Virginia has begun door-to-door education drives about the amendment in Norfolk, Virginia Beach and other cities, and Ann Hageman, the campaign's Hampton Roads community action coordinator, said it's message is receiving a positive response. "This amendment is everyone's issue," she said, "and if people take the time to educate themselves on what the implications are, most Virginians will agree it's discrimination in its ugliest form." The amendment is worded, opponents say, in a way that it could interfere with same-sex couples' ability to enter child-custody agreements or make end-of-life decisions. "Nobody knows what this thing will do," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, the coalition's campaign manager. She said the campaign will emphasize that there has been no effort to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions in Virginia. But Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, who helped sponsor legislation setting up the referendum, said opponents were warned of unintended consequences three years ago when the General Assembly passed a law banning civil unions. He said none have surfaced and the amendment will merely ensure that it is not overturned in court in the future. "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that's the way it's always been and that's the way it should be in Virginia," Cosgrove said. Supporters of the amendment have also organized a campaign to support it. Family Foundation Action, a Richmond nonprofit group, started a Web site last summer and has begun mobilizing volunteers and church groups to win support among voters. "We're very confident the voters of Virginia understand the value of marriage," said Victoria Cobb, the group's president. She said 19 states have already passed amendments to their constitutions banning same-sex marriage.
Information from: The Virginian-Pilot, http://www.pilotonline.com

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:15 AM

by The Associated Press
April 7, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Juneau, Alaska) Efforts to amend the state Constitution's ban on gay marriage to deny health and other benefits to the partners of gay public employees is sputtering in the Alaska Legislature.
Last October, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had a constitutional obligation to offer the benefits. Measures were introduced in both the House and Senate to amend the state's ban on gay marriage so the state would not have to provide the benefits.
But now momentum to address the issue seems to be waning. Lawmakers are already consumed this session with overhauling the state's oil tax system and that has crowded out most other legislation.
Meanwhile, hearings on the constitutional amendment have been jam-packed and heavily lopsided against the measure -- which requires a two-thirds vote of each body of the Legislature to pass.
If the measure is approved by lawmakers, it still would not be added to the constitution just yet. The question would then be put to voters in a statewide election.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:57 AM

by Michael J. Meade, 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
April 7, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The decision over whether gay and lesbian couples from Rhode Island and New York will be allowed to marry will be made by a judge with a record of ruling against same-sex couples.
Last month the Supreme Judicial Court let stand a 1913 law that prevents clerks from issuing marriage licenses to people from states where that marriage would be illegal.
The case involved eight gay couples from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York.
In 2004 a Superior Court judge upheld the 1913 law. The couples, represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders - the same group that won the original marriage ruling - appealed.
But in upholding the law the high court said that gay couples from New York and Rhode Island might be able to wed despite the Massachusetts law because neither of those states have laws with specific wording excluding same-sex marriage.
The court asked the Superior Court to determine if that would be enough to allow New York and Rhode Island gay couples to marry in Massachusetts.
It had been assumed the issue would be decided by the judge whose ruling on out-of-state marriages ended up in the Supreme Judicial Court. That judge, Carol S. Ball, ruled that even the 1913 law prevented out-of-state gays from marrying it violated the spirit of the high court ruling that permitted same-sex marriage in the state.
Gay advocates believed that if the case went back to her she would find in favor of gay couples from Rhode Island and New York.
But under that court's rotation system the case will go to Judge Thomas E. Connolly.
Connolly is the judge who ruled against same-sex marriage that resulted in the high court ruling allowing Massachusetts gays to marry in the first place.
A one-time seminary student, Connolly in his ruling that no same-sex couple could marry in the state said that bearing children is central to marriage and that there was nothing in state law gives same-sex couples a constitutional right to wed.
Regardless of how Connolly rules, it will not affect same-sex couples who reside in Massachusetts and whatever his decision on gay couples from Rhode Island and New York the issue is likely to return to the Supreme Judicial Court.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:52 AM

by The Associated Press
April 7, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET

(Topeka, Kansas) Kansans overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment a year ago banning marriages and civil unions for gay couples. The state hasn't been turned on its ear, but there still are concerns about what it could mean.
Supporters say there's no cause for alarm, arguing the amendment just put into the Kansas Constitution what has been law since 1867 - that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Kansas is among 19 states that have adopted such a constitutional amendment and among 41 states where the same policy is defined in law.
"We wanted to prevent the state Supreme Court from overturning our marriage laws," said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, who authored the proposal approved by voters last April 5. "It's absolutely critical that we promote and strengthen marriage when we have folks out there trying to make something out of marriage that it's not. It's an attack on the foundation of marriage and family."
The amendment wasn't prompted by any gay Kansans seeking a marriage license but by concerns that attempts to sanction such unions could spread from other states, most notably Massachusetts.
"There's a real fear of same-sex couples in Kansas could go to other states and come back and force recognition and this stopped that," Huelskamp said.
The Kansas amendment also declares only unions between a man and woman are entitled to the "rights or incidents of marriage" - aimed a banning civil unions.
"The second part is truly the ugly part of this. So far, there haven't been any lawsuits regarding the second part, but it's only a matter of time," said Thomas Witt, chairman of the Kansas Equality Coalition, which champions civil rights for gays and lesbians.
David Buckel, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, said the phrase "rights or incidents of marriages" is too ambiguous.
"There's a lot of head scratching around the country, because that language has popped up in other states where discrimination has been written into the law," Buckel said.
The Rev. Terry Fox, senior pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Wichita, said the Kansas amendment isn't about being against gays and lesbians.
"It was more for marriage than against homosexuals," said Fox, one of last year's major amendment supporters.
Fox said the amendment did have one unintended consequence.
"It has really motivated evangelical Christians to get back involved in politics," he said. "The amendment showed that being involved makes a difference."
While Huelskamp and other amendment backers say they want to keep the judicial branch away from defining marriage, the courts may end up weighing in.
"Nobody knows what it means. My guess is there will have to be some clarification from the courts as to what it really means," said Bill Rich, associate dean of Washburn University Law School. "It has kind of a chilling effect and will until some of these issues are resolved."
But Attorney General Phill Kline said his office hasn't been asked for legal interpretations of the amendment, which he calls "an unfortunate necessity" for protecting marriage.
Even so, Witt worries about unintended consequences. For example, in Ohio, some domestic abuse cases involving unmarried couples were dismissed because judges said the law applied only to married couples because of that state's amendment. Those rulings were appealed.
"If you run a car into a brick wall in Ohio, you're going to have pretty much the same result if you run a car into a brick wall in Kansas," Witt said.
Buckel said amendments in Georgia and Michigan also face legal challenges. A federal judge in Nebraska declared that state's amendment unconstitutional, but the ruling was appealed.
Rich said the Kansas amendment could create doubt about whether employers should offer domestic partner benefits for workers.
"People might not be willing to take the risk regarding same sex benefits knowing they could be challenged in court," he said.
Kline said there's little cause for concern because the amendment wouldn't apply to benefits offered by private companies. He's even offered to defend state or local government agencies that extend benefits to unmarried partners.
Many states rushed to pass marriage amendments after Massachusetts' highest court declared in 2003 that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was unconstitutional in that state. Last month, the same court said same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot legally marry in Massachusetts.
Beyond the 19 states with the amendment, seven others have votes scheduled this year and 10 more either have pending legislation or petitions to put the issue on the ballot, according to Matthew Spalding, director of the Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
If all 17 states adopt the amendment that would total 36 states - two short of what's needed to ratify a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution if it's approved by two-thirds of Congress.
"They have elevated the issue to the constitutional level. Clearly they have signaled that the definition of marriage is important," Spalding said.
Buckel said there's no guarantee that states' adopting amendments will translate into rewriting the U.S. Constitution.
"It's unimaginable that this country has the stomach to write discrimination into the supreme law of the land," Buckel said.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:50 AM

by Mark Worrall, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
April 7, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) Groups already pushing for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage are girding for a major battle over legislation that would mandate the teaching of LGBT history in California schools.
The measure has already passed one Senate committee and appears likely to hit the floor later this spring. Supporters say they are measurably confident the bill will pass both houses this session.
But whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign it is unknown. He has been supportive of some LGBT rights measures but vetoed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.
The education bill was authored by Senator Shelia Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) the only openly lesbian member of the legislature.
“Students deserve an education that gives them a full and accurate picture of our history and society rather than one skewed by negative images and stereotypes,” said Kuehl.
Her bill would require that the contributions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, like other underrepresented groups, be included in social science curriculum.
One student who testified in favor of the bill said that when students learn about the people who shaped history they seldom hear that many of those people were gay.
"I believe that many of society's values are rooted in education, and with an inclusive and more diverse curriculum, we can break down the stereotypes that are obstructing the way to acceptance for all," said Juliana Spector, a senior from Piedmont High School in Oakland.
But conservatives are demanding that the governor stand up now and voice opposition to the legislation. The Campaign for Children and Families, one of two groups pushing to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, denounced the education bill.
``We're totally opposed to inserting sexual orientation into textbooks in our schools, Karen England, executive director of the public-policy group Capital Resource Institute told the Mercury News.
Nevertheless, LGBT rights groups across the country are closely watching the progress the bill makes. If it becomes law similar legislation could be pursued in other states.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:49 AM

by Peter Moore, 365Gay.com London Bureau
April 7, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(London) Britain's Court of Appeals has ordered that two children be removed from the custody of their biological mother and turned over to her ex-partner.
The ruling came after the birth mother ignored a lower court ruling that gave joint custody of the two young girls to both women. The court heard that the biological mother fled with the children to Cornwall rather than share custody.
When they were found the birth mother was ordered to appear in court where a judge ruled there was no indication she would obey the joint custody ruling in the future.
He noted that both women had shared responsibilities in raising the children and that the girls did not distinguish between one mother or the other.
He then ordered that the children be surrendered to the former partner who would become their sole caregiver. The decision was hailed as a major breakthrough in the recognition that same-sex partners have rights in parenting.
The birth mother appealed.
In its ruling the the Appeals Court upheld the lower court ruling and noted that times have changed and traditional definitions of families have changed with them.
"We have moved into a world where norms that seemed safe 20 or more years ago no longer run," said Lord Justice Thorpe writing for the court.
"In the eyes of the child, the natural parent may be a non-biological parent who, by virtue of long settled care, has become the child's psychological parent," Thorpe said.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:46 AM

USA Today
Posted 4/2/2006 9:12 PM
By Jonathan Turley
With mid-term elections approaching, politicians are once again returning to one of their favorite themes: protecting the sanctity of marriage. When same-sex marriage is raised, citizens quickly forget about rampant corruption in Congress, towering budget deficits, or even the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, therefore, a constitutional amendment has been cited as a legislative priority by both President Bush and Republican leadership. The message is clear: What politics and religion have joined, let no one pull apart.
The fact is that the same-sex marriage fight is one that advocates on both sides would hate to end. Money is pouring in, membership rolls are expanding, and advocates have an issue that borders on obsession for many Americans.
Related: Read previous columns
Since 2004, almost two dozen states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and additional proposed amendments are planned for this year in Congress and various states. At the same time, gay rights advocates are pursuing their own legislative efforts and numerous court challenges to establish constitutional protections for the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Before we enter yet another election season of spasmodic referendums and debates over same-sex marriage, one question is worth considering: What if we could end this controversy once and for all?
The real problem with same-sex marriage is not the qualifier but the noun. Religious advocates believe that marriage is a term loaded with moral and religious meaning. Gay advocates want to marry for much the same reason: as a social recognition of their equivalent moral standing. It might be the only political war fought over the proprietary use of a single noun. There is a simple solution: Stop using the word "marriage" in government licensing laws in favor of the more relevant term "civil union."
Where it all began
This battle began centuries ago, when the government was aligned with a particular faith in a struggle for sectarian dominance. In England in the 18th century, the Church of England was given exclusive control over legitimate marriages. Thus, unless you were married by the Church, your marriage was illegitimate — and so were any children that were produced in that marriage.
Even when marriage "reform" was legislated in the Declaration of Rights in 1776, the government still limited its recognition of marriages to couples married by Anglican ministers. In colonies such as Virginia, the government continued this preference for Anglican marriages (requiring special licenses for ministers of other religions).
This parochial use of marriage recognition continues in many countries. Indeed, courts in Israel recognize only Jewish marriages performed in Orthodox Jewish ceremonies.
In the USA, most states make it a crime to marry couples without government licenses, making even purely religious "marriages" a potential crime. Thus, in New York, Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were criminally charged for officiating at weddings for same-sex couples who could not get marriage licenses. Even when Jason West married couples as mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., he was also charged criminally. Thus, the government will prevent a religion or civic group from performing a marriage, even if the marriage would have no legal effect without a marriage license.
If the role of government in maintaining "legitimate" forms of marriage doesn't make you uncomfortable, it should. In most other areas, the government steadfastly avoids this type of religious squabble, separating governmental functions from religious faiths. Marriage, however, has always been a conspicuous door placed in the wall of the separation between church and state.
The government's distinction between legitimate and illegitimate marriages takes sides in a controversy that has raged since the formation of the first religions. Many religious groups, which include tens of thousands of Americans, believe in plural marriage or polygamy as a human right and divinely ordained.
Other groups insist on endogamy (marriage within a defined group), while others insist on exogamy (marriage outside of a defined group). While many fundamentalists believe that marriage can only be a union of a man or a woman, other Christians reject this interpretation and embrace same-sex marriage.
The reason that marriage licenses are so valued by advocates is precisely the reason it should be expunged from public documents: It conveys a religious or moral meaning. Conversely, the state interest in marriage concerns its legal meaning. It is the agreement itself, not its inherent religious meaning, that compels the registry of marriages by the government. Once married, the legal rights and obligations of the couple change in areas ranging from taxes to inheritance to personal injury to testimonial privileges.
The government's policing role over legitimate marriages also produces curious contradictions. While the government criminalizes the marriage of same-sex couples without official licenses (denied to them as a matter of policy), it does not police religious practices governing divorces.
For example, Orthodox Jews believe that a woman remains married regardless of any civil divorce until her former husband gives her a "get," or voluntary termination of the marriage. Some women have been left "married" for decades by former husbands refusing to recognize the termination of their marriage. Even so, the government still recognizes that they are indeed divorced because we view a registered divorce as ending their civic obligations to each other.
The civil answer
The same approach should apply to marriages, leaving the moral validity of a marriage to religious organizations. For state purposes, couples would simply sign a civil union agreement that confirms their legal obligations to each other and any progeny. Whether they are married in religious ceremonies would be left entirely to them and their faith. The government's interest and role would be confined to enforcing the civil contract, as it would any other civil agreement.
Consenting adults should be able to assume the obligations of a civil union regardless of how their neighbors view their morality. As in other areas, adults should be able to follow the dictates of their own faith so long as they do not endanger or harm others, particularly minors.
Whether damnation awaits monogamists or polygamists or same-sex couples is a matter between citizens and their respective faiths. The government should address that aspect of marriage that concerns its insular needs: confirming the legal obligations of consenting adults. As for our politicians, there are levees to be rebuilt, corruption to end and wars to win.
Of course, this solution would deprive both sides of the debate of a controversy that has been a political and financial windfall. Nonetheless, the public certification of the moral relationships is not the call of government; it is the call of the faithful. It is time we move beyond moral licensing by the government and return marriage to its proper realm: in the churches, temples, mosques, and the hearts of every citizen.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and he is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:37 AM

Apr. 6, 2006. 09:18 AM
The Star

The new Conservative government says it will hold a free vote in the House of Commons on same-sex marriage. We asked you what you think of this idea. Here's what you had to say.
As far as I am aware the only party obligated to take part in the 'free vote' is the Conservatives. The other parties can push their members to vote along party lines. I guess we'll soon see if the Liberals do in fact believe in upholding our Constitution, Charter, and Human Rights -- are we all equal or just some of us? The NDP supports us, the Bloc support us, the Conservatives do not support us -- Now we'll find out if the Liberals support us. Tom Balint, Welland, Ont., April 6
What a waste of time and money. I just hope Harper doesn't do too much damage before he's out of office. Pete Dako, Toronto, April 6
Let the issue rest. The rights have been given, who are the Conservatives to take them away? And who are all of these people who are so against homosexuals living their own private lives? Does anyone actually have a valid argument against homosexuality? Or are we going to continue to have to listen to the same, unintelligent, circular arguments these homophobes keep spewing out? Michelle Van Dyk, Uxbridge, Ont., April 6
I've moved here recently from the U.S., and I can say I've heard this all before. When all else fails neo-cons go to their base and talk about God, guns, and gays. The PM will likely have his anti-marriage vote. If it passes and the courts strike it down, he'll whine he couldn't do anything and gain support from his base. If it doesn't pass, he'll whine he needs a majority. No matter which happens, he wins and we all (immigrants and citizens) lose. Bob Shirley, Toronto, April 6
I am so shocked, and cannot believe I am reading such judgmental and hateful comments on here by Canadians. I thought Canadians were the most awesome and tolerant people in the world compared to the United States. This is so scary and so Bush-like that I'm wondering if I made a good choice to move to Canada. Hopefully Harper will wise-up and understand that this is a human-rights issue and not a religious issue. I think we need to be reminded -- I thought church and state are separate here. Christine Avramov, Toronto, April 6
If the Liberals would have had a free vote when this all started instead of using the issue to gain extra votes for themselves we would have this all behind us. Having said that, what’s done is done. Alasdair Kerr, Guelph, Ont., April 6
Same-sex marriage has already been dealt with in parliament; equal marriage is a reality. To drag Canada through this process again shows contempt for both our legislative system and people in same-sex partnerships. Since marriage is a personal matter, it baffles me that people are so keen to waste so much time and money on keeping it the exclusive domain of those in heterosexual relationships. The state has many better things to do than interfere in anyone's personal life. Amy Turton, Victoria, April 6
Defending the rights of minorities comes hand in hand with a democratic society. The idea of gay marriage will take time for some to get used to; others might never accept the idea. The same could be said for when we gave women the vote. Peter Row, Seoul, South Korea, April 6
It's been almost a year since legislation was passed allowing marriages for same-sex couples. It's been much longer that same-sex people have been getting married in Canada. Has the sky fallen? Has the meaning of marriage become any less for heterosexuals? No. The reintroduction of the same-sex marriage question can only be a homophobic response to something that is so clearly benign. I saddens me enormously that people actually voted for this government. Tor Sandberg, Toronto, April 6
I am happy to hear that Mr. Harper will hold a free vote. It's about time someone took a stand on this issue and allowed the peoples voice to be heard. I am not against same-sex couples having some kind of a union arrangement, if that is what they want, but please let’s not take away the sanctity of marriage as we have known it. I believe most Canadians would agree with this if given the opportunity to have their voice heard. Mel Rideout, Newcastle, April 6
I just don't get why people care so much about other people sharing their lives together. It has nothing to do with you or your marriage and it truly is sad to see us debating over the right people have to share their love when there are so many more important issues in this world that need our attention. Stop hating what you don't understand or what is different from you. We're all human beings and none of us can claim superiority over another. Raquel Teixeira, Scarborough, April 6
At least someone is thinking about the future of Canada. Our country was built on the institution of the family. Radically redefining marriage to include same-sex couples undermines this vital institution. Throughout history, marriage between a man and a woman has been essential to forming strong families. Strong families, in turn, have always been the foundation of all successful societies. Mr. Harper does not hate gays and lesbian people. He is just doing what he feels(and a majority of Canadians feel) will be best for our country down the road, not just what people want or agree with now. Kerri Hartholt, Nobleton, Ont., April 6
Dear Stephen Harper. Some advice: Spend your time in power to do something good for the community, empowering us as citizens and making the province of Ontario an example of where the rest of the world is headed rather than a reminder of where we have been. While you slave away to re-"re-define" marriage, there are people without jobs and starving on the street, youth without affordable schooling and children without adequate housing. Why aren't you "revisiting" these issues? J.P. Udo, Toronto, April 6
I'm very glad to hear this. This issue is one of the main reasons I voted for the Conservatives. Where should one draw the line between morality and equality? I believe legalizing same-sex marriage is going too far. It's also great to see the government intends to actually do something about their election promises. Sherman Yin, Toronto, April 6
The idea is fine because it won't change a thing. They are keeping a promise to a segment of the population which was given no voice when the bill initially passed. Once this vote is held, this matter will be finished. In the end, it is good for people who are pro same-sex marriage because the free-vote will easily pass and the other side will me muted. Nothing changes, the issue is put to rest and important matters can again be dealt with in Parliament. Sounds like a good idea to me. Graham Magus, Toronto, April 6
Sixty one per cent of the electoral vote was against the Conservatives minority and they continue to flog this dead horse. What do these idiots need for them to get the message? Canadians are no longer interested in this subject and the provinces have already made same-sex marriage legal. Another time waster for the House of Commons. This is just another sop to the religious right. W. Eric Johnson, Westmeath, April 6
How can a country called Canada give rights to a group of it's people and then have a free vote as to whether or not these rights should be taken away. Perhaps the individuals who voted in backlash for this government will now have some idea of what they have unleashed on us all. Winifred Heath, Courtice, Ont., April 6
I say leave it alone. It is hurtful and divisive. Canada should be proud of being one of the few countries that treat all their citizens-straight and gay, with respect to their personal choices. It's a mess up here in the States. Judy Silver, Minneapolis, Minn., April 6
Holding a vote on same-sex marriage in Parliament at this point is a waste of time. The Supreme Court has made its decision, and the right of same-sex couples to marry is now recognized under the Charter. A majority of Canadians have realized that same-sex marriage isn't the harbinger of the apocalypse it was once feared to be and have since moved on to issues of greater importance. Most importantly, the only way for Parliament to override a Charter right is by resorting to the Notwithstanding clause - something Mr. Harper has pledged not to do. So what will a free vote accomplish, exactly? I understand that Mr. Harper has to throw some red meat to his socially conservative base, but is it worth opening old wounds to do so? David Kates, Halifax, April 6
I simply do not understand the kafuffle. If people of the same sex want to be married where is the harm? Perhaps to the religious views of some, but at least the couple are making a vow to love each other, and love is a good thing, right? If people want to be happy, why should we not accept that? Mark Schisler, Waterloo, April 6
This is one of the few times our government seems to be democratic and fair. The Liberals wouldn't consider a free vote in parliament. William Smith, Brantford, April 6
Homosexuality is today as it has been since the beginning of civilization, a reality of the human existence. Apart from the numerous contributions to society that people of this persuasion have made, the bottom line is that they pay taxes just like the rest of us and therefore are entitled to the same benefits as the rest of us. Joseph Albanese, Hamilton, April 6
Sounds like a good idea. The first vote was not a good example of democracy-in-action. Let's see where people are really at regarding this issue. Then it will be settled. Matthew Parker, Toronto, April 6
Leave this issue alone -- it's a done deal. Apart from the fact that this move is mean-spirited and prejudicial, it is also a legal nightmare, as Stephen Harper knows very well. All I can hope for is that the Liberals -- who got us into the mess of having the Conservatives in power again -- come up with a credible leader so the Tories don't form a majority next time. Conrad Alexandrowicz, Vancouver, April 5
It seems people are missing the point. It has nothing to do with marriage, nor religion. It is simply equal rights. The same law that says you may be Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or any other, has to equally guarantee the rights of minorities such as gays. Phyllis Coffman, Kitchener, Ont., April 5
If one sees marriage as a civil act then all people should have access to a state-sanctioned benefit. If one sees marriage as a sacrament, then that should be up to the faith community to decide who has access to the sacrament. Either way, same-sex marriage should not be forbidden by the government of Canada. Re-imposing a ban on same-sex marriage is an attack on the civil rights of a sizable minority in Canada. It is also an attack on religious freedom. Brian Burch, Toronto, April 5
There is no reason why a homosexual couple who wish to be married should not receive the same benefits and rights that heterosexual married couples receive from the government. Also, a legal marriage is not necessarily a Christian marriage. Churches still reserve the right to choose not to a marry a couple, for many reasons. My minister will not marry a couple who have co-habited. It is legal to co-habit and this law has not imposed itself upon the rights of the church. So why should the law concerning gay marriage? Alison Mills, Toronto, April 5
Oh, leave it alone, Harper. Don't throw us back into the Dark Ages. I was never so proud of my country as when the same-sex legislation was passed. Don't make me ashamed now by rescinding it! Norma Graham, Kimberley, Ont., April 5
Why do we need to do this? I thought that it was already settled by Parliament and the courts. What's next? Abortion? Ian Folkard, Toronto, April 5
I think this is a great idea. I am against same-sex marriage and because of the fact that Mr. Martin did not allow a free vote by members of his cabinet I chose not to vote Liberal in the past election even though I have voted Liberal all my life. I honestly think that this is an issue that should be brought to a referendum and this could have been done at the time of the election. Susan Amesse, Toronto, April 5
This is so frustrating. We'd like to be able to plan our wedding to include our family and friends without having to worry about scrapping it all and rushing to city hall before we lose our rights. Danielle McBride, Toronto, April 5
This once again reveals that behind the moderate posturing of Harper lies a very bigoted party intent on denying rights to Canadians. Stoking the flames of homophobia, which is what this free vote will do, is only harmful to Canadian society. Alex Kerner, Toronto, April 5
Enough is enough. we have been thru this before. I have no problem with allowing gays to marry. Canadians will live to regret putting into power this ultra right wing Conservative party. Us old conservatives should all go liberal. Donald Parker, Stoney Creek, April 5
Just a short time ago, Canada made bold steps towards equality for all by allowing same-sex marriage to take place. We set a positive example for the rest of the world. Today, I am saddened and angered that the current Tory government would propose to take a giant step backwards in human rights by opening the subject up for debate again. I only hope that the outcome of this vote is that of progression, rather than regression, of human rights. Laurie Wilkinson, Toronto, April 5
I think it is great that they are holding a vote on same sex marriage. I keep hearing about groups and polls that say the majority of Canadians want this issue to be put to rest. I disagree. I do agree in principle that there should be same sex rights, but that it should not be called marriage. By calling it marriage, it leaves the door open for polygamy. I cannot imagine that most Canadians want that to be legalized. Let's repeal the law and call it "social union", or "partnership" or something else so that polygamy cannot be legalized in Canada. Donna Lambert, Pickering, April 5
Do we not have enough serious problems facing this nation that this man has to pick as first order of business things which cater to religious extremists? First it's eliminating the day-care commitment of the former government that will help low-income women to enter the work force and thereby raise the standard of living for their kids. Now it's another retrogressive step to foist certain religious beliefs on a country that calls itself pluralist. His political defeat cannot come too soon. Margaret Hawkins, Aurora, April 5
I would urge the "moral majority" to contact their MPs to vote in favor of rescinding this dangerous bill brought in by the former Liberal government. This was bad legislation and needs to be scrapped. David Smith, Dundas, Ont., April 5
Harper's move to re-open this "debate" only serves to destabilize and threaten the current married status of gay and lesbian couples, as well as the marital equality currently enjoyed between all Canadians. We ought to be deeply distrustful of a government that wants to "save" marriage by destroying the marriages of others. Jonathan Weverink, Toronto, April 5
Stephen Harper needs a refresher course in basic constitutional law. If Parliament enacted a law to ban same-sex marriage, it would be an invalid law, since the highest courts in many provinces have already declared such a law to be unconstitutional. The only way Harper and his anti-equality cronies can uphold such a law is to use the notwithstanding clause. This is not an issue that may be decided by majority rule. The constitution (a piece of legislation passed by elected officials) is meant to ensure that minority rights are protected precisely when the majority fails to do so. Lynn Iding, Toronto, April 5
Canada is the model for equality, diversity and tolerance to the world. I think it’s disappointing that we need to put a minority through a vote to determine their status and rights. The issue has been dealt with and the general consensus in Canada has been the acceptance of same-sex rights as human rights issues. And we should not deny anyone their place among equals. Omer Husain, Toronto, April 5
Excellent idea. Same-sex marriage is wrong and should not be part of the Canadian scene. Unfortunately due to the moral breakdown in our culture the small homosexual faction has pushed their agenda front and centre. The gay movement is vocal, in your face and well organized which may win the day for them on this issue. John Malcolm, Edmonton, April 5
I believe the term is ‘equal’ marriage. Now, as to the Conservative government re-opening the debate and putting the legislation back to a vote of the House, let's see, what adjectives come to mind? Reactionary, regressive, insulting, unnecessary, wasteful. Paul R Davis, Toronto, April 5
Marriage is a very special and sacred thing that should always be between a man and a women. There should never be any questions asked about this. We as Canadians do accept a lot of different things but this is one thing that should never be. Doug Cotnam, Pickering, April 5
Why is this even an issue? If two people I don't know chose to marry, it doesn't affect me in any way. It doesn't matter if they are gay or straight. Whether I agree with it or not, it doesn't change what marriage means to me or devalue my marriage in any way. Enough is enough. If two people want to get married, let them do it. No matter what their gender. Barb Swann, Kingston, April 5
As a gay man living in our country, never was I prouder of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gave us the right to marry. Equal people wanting no more than the same rights -- as equals -- as everyone else. I attribute that aspiration to true Canadian leaders, like Pierre Elliot Trudeau who paved the way. You pale so much by contrast Mr. Harper. You and your Conservative Party must now tell the public what you define as "equal." Drew York, Toronto, April 5
I support the free vote. Same-sex people living together can have same rights as come under the term marriage but term "marriage" should only be designated for male and female union. Was Abbasi, St. Catharines, Ont., April 5
I guess it's a pity that this issue is brought up again. The former administration voted for the same-sex marriage and that's the way is should be kept. I always was proud of Canada for being one of the few advanced countries in the 21st century. Armin Gut, Affoltern, Switzerland, April 5
Mr. Harper: Forget it and stop pandering to the social conservatives. Geoffrey Smith, Aurora, April 5
Another vote on same sex marriage. How many same-sex marriages have there been since they were allowed? Has the sky fallen? Has it affected anybody's life who doesn't agree with it? I am amazed we ever get anything accomplished. Leave it alone, nobody cares. Bev Valley, Burlington, April 5
It's time to stop accommodating homosexual lobbyists for their own selfishness and unnatural lifestyle. We all know what happened in history to societies and empires that ran rampant in this fashion -- they perished. And so will we. Bring on the free vote. Better yet, just erase it from the books. We've got more important issues in Canada to focus on. Stephanie Wainwright, Toronto, April 5
Stephen Harper and his conservatives obviously haven't read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, obviously have no respect for settled law, and obviously don't care about the shattered hopes and dreams of many current and future homosexual couples who would like to enjoy the same privileges of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy. Andrea Micieli, Mississauga , April 5
Finally a free vote so MPs can vote what their constituents want. Hopefully this will defeat same sex marriage. David O'Rourke, Kippen, Ont., April 5
If this issue has already been decided on a constitutional basis, then the Conservatives have no business trying to tamper with it. Linda Trenholm, Oshawa, April 5
What is the problem here anyway? Laws are rules for us to live by as a harmonious society. Why does the government care about personal relationships and commitments? Who is hurt by this? I understand that different religions may have certain standards or "rules" governing the relationships between people and I have no problem with that. There is something called freedom of religion in this country. There is nothing that says that every religion must marry anyone. So why is there a problem? Really - who cares? Lesley Wright, Keswick, April 5
It's time to give it up. Human rights are more important in this day and age. Wasting more time and money of Canada's Parliament on this dead issue is not very smart. Where are the priorities? Michael Doyon, Gander, April 5
I believe a free vote is important since many MPs voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the last Parliament only because their party forced them to. A free vote would better represent the Canadian people. Fraser Lang, Toronto, April 5
The free vote is better than the result that was "imposed" by the Liberals. However, I believe this is so important, and affects so many people that a country-wide vote should be taken by adding the question to the federal election ballot. Terry Butlin, Stoney Creek, Ont., April 5
Many seem to forget that the last vote on same-sex marriage was pretty much a free vote (although the cabinet was "whipped"). Little has changed in the Commons -- the Conservatives' new Quebec MPs are on the record as saying that they are uninterested in re-opening the same-sex marriage debate, and many of the new Conservative MPs replaced Liberal MPs who were against same-sex marriage to begin with. Let's keep in mind that unless Harper is prepared to use the notwithstanding clause on this issue, changes to the federal law will only affect Alberta -- the only province where the courts have not already declared same-sex marriage constitutionally permissible. Jim Smith, Toronto, April 5
Surely we have more pressing matters to tend to. Let's get on with governing our country. Charles Roden, Toronto, April 5
To hold a free vote in the House of Commons on the same-sex marriage will be a big waste of time. What is the Conservative government trying to prove? The Federal Court the highest court in the land has spoken. Hands off politicians. Focus on what is important to Canadians such as funding public education, health care, and social programs. Mindy Lopes, Toronto, April 5
The same-sex marriage legislation allows anyone to marry anyone else for any reason they choose. What's wrong with that? Doug Waldick, North York, April 5
What exactly is wrong with a free vote? Isn't that what democracy is all about? Ryan Needler, Toronto, April 5
My advice to Harper and Vic Toews: drop the idea. The issue has been decided on, so move on. If they cannot move on, then they don't deserve to be in office. We need forward-looking politicians, not backward-looking ones. Miles Lunn, Vancouver, April 5
There was a vote taken in the House of Commons which upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry so why have another vote? Let the House get on with other matters of importance. Bob Kennedy, Barrie, April 5
The idea of the Tories reopening the debate shows their total disregard for the due process of law, which, incidentally, has already been determined in the last parliament. It also shows the Tories' inveterate hatred of gays and lesbians and total contempt for the human rights of beings who happen to express themselves sexually differently from the majority of Tory MPs. Shame on Harper. Michel B. Johnson, Toronto, April 5
A majority of Canadians are against same-sex marriage, so why not revisit the issue? A country is a reflection of the people who live in it. I personally am not against same-sex people having rights but marriage is a different discussion. Antonio Silva, Toronto, April 5
It is a terrible thing to remove the rights from a minority group. Having a government that is prepared to do so should be a concern to all Canadians. Scott Munden, Toronto, April 5
However much I advocate human rights, same-sex marriage is out of question. How can a person marry a same-sex partner? They can live together, but marriage doesn't make sense. Shafik Fazal, Woodbridge, April 5
Shame on Mr. Harper I say. Perhaps while he's at it he should also suggest a free vote on racial segregation, or a head tax on immigrants of certain nationalities? Kevin Watson, Toronto, April 5
It is a great idea and I support it. Liberals shoved this destructive social agenda into our faces. This needs to be reconsidered in an open and frank debate, without any sort of appeal to a shallow political correctness. I support Prime Minister Harper. Nisheeth Saini, Brampton, April 5
It's time to give up on revoking this human right. Time has shown that same-sex marriages are not effecting opposite-sex marriages. One should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on others, as the "Christian and Muslim right" is attempting to do, just as nobody has forced them to do anything against their beliefs. Matt Swift, Toronto, April 5
Live and let live. Madelaine Ladisa, Toronto, April 5
Here we go again. Sigh. If the vote passes, are they going to make those of us already married file for divorce? What a waste of Parliament's time. Jo Sorrill, Whitby, April 5
The issue must be reopened. It is not a Charter issue at all. If the gay movement and the Liberals/NDP think it is so strongly supported by all Canadians then put it to a national referendum. Hart Krug, Toronto, April 5
I think it's a waste of time and taxpayer's money to spend another minute debating a matter that was already decided upon. What's the point? Power to those who have found a life partner whether it be same sex or not. Let them have their marriage and the benefits/downsides it comes with. Michelle Fazekas, Toronto, April 5
Same-Sex marriage is a dead issue, let it rest in peace. Matt Fairbanks, Burlington, April 5
Finally, a true free vote in the house that might actually represent the views of Canadians, rather than the "gun to the head" Liberal vote last year. Way to go, Mr. Harper. That's leadership. Paul Nieuwland, Hillsburgh, April 5
I am in full agreement on this matter. When the last "free vote" was held the Liberals insisted their cabinet must vote in favor of the bill, so it was not a free vote. If Harper makes it a real true vote and all parties allow their MPs to vote the issue will be decided once and for all. George Pengilley, Brampton Ont., April 5
It doesn't go far enough. Marriage should be allowed between any adults. Any number of adults. Regardless of their relationships. Any restrictions in terms of number of persons in the marriage, their gender, biological relationships is an infringement of human rights. Peter Tam, Waterloo, April 5

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:35 AM

April 7, 2006
New York Times
By NEELA BANERJEE
After years of turning the other cheek, the United Church of Christ, among the most liberal of the mainline Protestant denominations, has recently staked out a more pugnacious stance toward the Christian right.
The Rev. John H. Thomas, the denomination's president, has sharply criticized the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a conservative religious watchdog and advocacy group, for supporting groups within mainline denominations that would further a conservative theological and political perspective. And the church has undertaken new advertising and e-mail campaigns to combat more conservative forces.
"I.R.D. is using church members, and even outside groups, to disrupt and ultimately control the mainline to promote its own political agenda," Mr. Thomas said last month in a speech at Gettysburg College.
In the e-mail campaign, the denomination is accusing the ABC News political program "This Week" of booking far more conservative Christian leaders than moderates for the Sunday morning broadcast. The network has called that assertion "unfounded and not based on fact."
And after stirring up publicity in late 2004 with an advertisement about tolerance, the church is distributing an even more pointed commercial that shows people who might not be considered mainstream, like a single mother and a gay couple, being shot through the roof of a church from an "ejector pew."
"God doesn't reject people," the commercial says. "Neither do we."
Critics of the United Church of Christ, including the Institute for Religion and Democracy, assert that the church tries to silence those who do not agree with its liberal interpretation of Scripture.
"In Thomas's case, I'm seeing an advancing case of paranoia," said Steve Rempe, the content editor for the institute's Web site. "He sees this vast conspiracy centered around conservative political motivations and doesn't seem to see the possibility that these people might have a legitimate pastoral concern for their churches."
The United Church of Christ appears to be battling two trends: the influence of the Institute of Religion and Democracy within mainline denominations and the influence of the religious right, particularly its influence with the news media.
Detractors and allies agree that the recent actions by the United Church of Christ signal a growing impatience among the mainline denominations with their far-right brethren and an increasing willingness to take some of them on.
"Leaders have responded strongly before, but the U.C.C. has taken it to a new level of battle or conflict," said the Rev. Christian Sharen of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
The United Church of Christ, which is made up in part of churches descended from the Puritan congregations, takes pride in its liberalism, and it has led other Protestant denominations in the ordination of women and on civil rights issues, said Randall Balmer, professor of American religious history at Columbia University. As with other mainline churches, it has been subject to disputes over homosexuality, in its case, a decision at its General Synod meeting last year to support same-sex marriage.
In an interview, Mr. Thomas said he welcomed spirited debate about issues like sexuality. But he said that in his March speech he was speaking out against those within the church and outside it who sought to wreck the denomination. He said in his speech, for example, that some dissenting groups in the church had encouraged members who agreed with them to withhold donations.
"We need to be more active in protecting our churches from this kind of behavior," Mr. Thomas said. "We need to differentiate between loving critics and critics who are looking to divide and destroy."
Mr. Rempe, who recorded Mr. Thomas's speech at Gettysburg, denied that his organization sought to destroy the mainline churches, pointing out that many of the institute's staff members belonged to those denominations. He also denied that the group had advised conservative dissenters to withhold money.
Financed in part by wealthy religious conservatives, the Institute for Religion and Democracy provides information to so-called renewal groups made up of conservative dissenters within the mainline churches. Mr. Rempe played down its efforts, saying it included an annual meeting "and some press releases and a couple of traded e-mails."
But experts on American Protestantism argue that the institute plays a far greater role in nurturing dissent and organizing a broader movement across denominational lines to battle leaders of the mainline churches.
Professor Balmer attended last year's annual meeting of the renewal groups organized by the institute's Association for Church Renewal
"A lot of the rhetoric was triumphalist," he said. "They thought they could use issues of homosexuality, gay clergy and same-sex unions to take over their denominations."
Others have joined the United Church of Christ in speaking out. Recently, the Rev. Michael Livingston, the new president of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., told a meeting of representatives of the group's member churches, "Mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches have been pounded into irrelevancy by the media machine of a false religion; a political philosophy masquerading as gospel; an economic principle wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue."
Although some mainline Christians feel energized by the new toughness, others worry that such an approach could threaten the very pluralism that the mainline churches have come to stand for and the gospel of love that so many preach.
"I think this is a dangerous place to be," said Mr. Sharen of Yale. "You stand to lose the integrity of 'turn the other cheek.' "

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 10:32 AM

by The Associated Press
April 6, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Hartford, Connecticut) The state Appellate Court has ruled a state statute on sexual assault involving stepchildren is unconstitutional because it seems to endorse same-sex relationships.
The court, in a decision overturning the third-degree sexual assault conviction of a New Haven man, said the statute violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dealing with equal protection.
The court ruled that the state law barring a stepparent from having sex with a stepchild of the opposite sex who is over 16 years old violates the equal protection rights because the state statute language does not prohibit the same relationship with a stepchild of the same sex.
"Under (the statute), sexual intercourse between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prohibited, but sexual intercourse between a stepfather and stepson is not," Appellate Court Judge William J. Lavery wrote. "We can conceive of no rational basis for that distinction."
The appeals court had overturned the conviction of the man, referred to only as John M., ruling there was not enough evidence that his wife was the girl's biological mother, making him a stepfather. However, it went a step further in ruling that the sexual assault standard does not mention same-sex relationships and therefore is unequal.
Judge Barry R. Schaller agreed with the decision to overturn the conviction, but wrote, in a separate opinion, that his colleagues on the Appellate Court went too far in ruling the statute unconstitutional.
"As a reviewing court, our obligation is clearly to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication." Schaller wrote, adding. "Our Supreme Court expressly has instructed that appellate courts should avoid deciding constitutional issues where possible."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:59 PM

by The Associated Press
April 6, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) No other state lawmaker has been more outspoken against gay marriage than Sen. Michele Bachmann, who for more than two years has led the effort at the Capitol to reserve the institution for heterosexual couples.So when the Senate Judiciary Committee heard the Stillwater Republican's constitutional amendment against gay marriage this week, it was perhaps no surprise that some of her family members were in the audience. But one surprise was where one of them was sitting -- alongside fellow opponents of the ban.Bachmann's stepsister, Helen LaFave of Minneapolis, is a lesbian. She did not testify at the hearing, in which senators rejected Bachmann's measure, but she said afterward that she felt it important to be there."I came to the hearing because it's a very personal issue," said LaFave, who was joined by her partner and several other family members. "Michele's been very out in front on it, and at some point I wanted to bear witness on what she's doing that's so personally hurtful to me and so many others."LaFave's father married Bachmann's mother about three decades ago, LaFave said. She said the two stepsisters still see each other occasionally at family functions, but are not close. She said Bachmann has known for years that she has a gay stepsister, but that the two have never discussed Bachmann's legislative efforts on the issue."I've mailed her two letters about the issue, but she never responded," said LaFave, who up until this week had never publicly come forward on the issue. She was invited to attend the hearing by the gay-rights group OutFront Minnesota.The two did not speak or interact at the hearing. But Bachmann said afterward she wasn't bothered by LaFave's presence."I love my sister, and I'm really glad she's here with her partner," Bachmann said. "We obviously disagree on this issue, and in that we're not unlike many other families."Bachmann said the nine siblings and step-siblings united by their parents' marriage are split on the issue. "The vote is 6-3 in our family," she said.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:57 PM

by Malcolm Thornberry, 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
April 5, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Jerusalem) The Supreme Court of Israel announced Wednesday that it will hear an appeal by five same-sex couples married in Canada who want those marriages recognized at home.
Oral arguments in the case will be heard May 28th.
In a rare move the court said the case will be heard by seven justices. Usually only three justices hear arguments in cases brought before the high court.
A decision could take months or possibly more than a year, Onn Stock, one of the lawyers involved in the case told 365Gay.com.
"Of course we hope it will not take too long for the decision, but regardless of the time period, we hope for a successful outcome," stock said.
He said he will argue that even though same-sex marriage is not permitted in Israel legal marriages performed outside the country should be recognized in the Jewish state.
"Israeli straight couples who marry overseas have their marriages recognized by the Ministry of the Interior regardless of whether they are able or not to marry each other in Israel," Stock told 365Gay.com.He noted that certain types of marriages are impossible to perform in Israel due to the fact that marriage law in Israel is determined by Jewish law. Often opposite-sex couples unable to marry in Israel have weddings abroad and then have them registered by the Interior Ministry.
Stock also said that he will argue that any distinction between straight and same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
He is representing three of the couples in the case. One of them, Jonathan Herland, 29, and his husband Ayal Wallrouch, 26, were married in a civil ceremony in Toronto last July.
Herland is an attorney who has dual Canadian and Israeli citizenship. He is a graduate of McGill University in Montreal and is a member of the bar in New York State and in Israel. He practices law in Tel Aviv.
Wallrouch is a life-sciences student and is employed at the Israeli Standards Institute. The couple has been together for three years.
When the returned home to Israel the Interior Ministry refused to register them as a married couple.
Same-sex couples have been slowly gaining recognition in Israel. In February Israel's Family Court for the first time recognized a same-sex couple as the joint parents of their children.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:40 PM

by The Associated Press
April 5, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET

(Providence, Rhode Island) Ed Bonetti of Warwick describes himself as a traditional Italian Catholic who wants what any dad would want for his 20-year-old son: to see him get married and have children.
But because his son is gay, he's not sure that will ever happen.
"My son has so many wonderful qualities. But we can't even look to those points right now because he does not have the same rights and he's not being treated fairly," said Bonetti, 46, who planned to testify Wednesday before the state's House Judiciary Committee.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island. The hearing comes a week after the highest court in Massachusetts, which in 2003 became the only state to legalize gay marriage, ruled gay couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot marry there.
But the Massachusetts court also said it was unclear whether Rhode Island prohibits gay marriage and sent the cases involving gay couples from here back to a lower court.
A gay marriage bill has been introduced in the General Assembly nearly every year for a decade. Current state law does not explicitly ban or permit gay marriage.
Both the House and Senate are considering bills to legalize gay marriage. The Senate also has a bill that defines marriage as between a man and woman. The bills have had hearings in previous years but never come to a committee vote.
Rep. Arthur Handy, D-Cranston, who is the lead sponsor on the bill to legalize gay marriage, has said he will ask for a vote this year, and advocates say they will push for one as well.
"That's what we need right now to move forward," said Jenn Steinfeld, co-chair of Marriage Equality Rhode Island.
But the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees said they would not promise a vote.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Michael McCaffrey, D-Warwick, said he opposes gay marriage. He plans a hearing on the Senate's bills after the General Assembly recess later this month.
The bill to legalize gay marriage has been gaining momentum in House, where its sponsors include Judiciary Chairman Donald Lally, D-Narragansett. He said he's reluctant to put the bill to committee and floor votes this year and then have it defeated in the Senate or vetoed by Gov. Donald Carcieri.
But he said he thinks the bill eventually will pass.
"What I've found in the House is each year people are becoming more tolerant," Lally said. "If you'd talked to me five years ago, civil unions wouldn't have been discussed, and now I've had Republicans come to me and say they wish that was available."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:38 PM

by Ben Thompson, 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
April 5, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Ottawa) Canada's new Conservative government said Wednesday that it is preparing legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law.
The move follows a campaign promise to hold a free vote in Parliament on the issue.
The marriage bill was not mentioned in this week's Speech from the Throne - the government's outline of its agenda for the session - leading some LGBT advocates to wonder if Prime Minister Stephen Harper was abandoning his threat.
Wednesday, however, Justice Minister Vic Toews said the bill is being prepared and a vote would be held "sooner rather than later.''
Toews pointed to the party platform saying that if the equal marriage law is overturned the government would bring in a second bill limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Asked about the marriage issue Harper later in the day said that the bill would not be introduced this spring but likely in the fall.
Canadians for Equal Marriage called the Tory plan a mistake.
"All indications are that Canadians are opposed to re-opening this debate," Laurie Arron, the organization's national coordinator told 365Gay.com.
Two recent Environics polls show that two-thirds of Canadians are against re-opening the marriage debate. As well, a recent survey of Canada's top executives revealed a strong consensus against re-opening the issue.
In January, following the winter election that resulted in a minority Conservative government, a Canadian Press study of the new House of Commons suggested a vote on repealing the marriage law would be rejected.
It would not be a total loss, however, the Canadian Press reported, noting that an honorable defeat on equal marriage would satisfy obligations to Harper's most right-wing supporters while defusing a politically explosive issue.
Far right social groups opposed to same-sex marriage have been making their presence known on Parliament Hill in recent weeks. The groups have been lobbying members of Parliament to support a repeal effort.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:37 PM

by The Associated Press
April 5, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

(Portland, Oregon) A lawsuit filed by a same-sex couple charges that Oregon has broken the law by recognizing only one of them as the parent of their child.
The couple, Jeana Frazzini and Kristan Parman, had a child two years ago through artificial insemination. They say the child's birth certificate recognizes only Parman, the birth mother, as the child's parent. As a result, Frazzini has to legally adopt the child to be recognized as a legal parent.
The couple and the gay rights group supporting their case said heterosexual married couples would not have to go through the same process.
So, they filed a lawsuit Wednesday that argues the state failed to adhere to a 1998 ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals that protects same-sex couples from discrimination related to state-provided benefits and services.
The lawsuit is the first of several that Basic Rights Oregon, the state's main group for advocating gay rights, plans to file against the state. The group said other lawsuits will address issues such as health benefits, retirement benefits and workers' compensation.
"We've gone through several different efforts to bring the state into compliance," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon. "It's very common for the state to adjust their policies...but we didn't see that with this case."
Basic Rights said it has worked with the governor's office for eight years and it would like to see an executive order issued to force the changes through the necessary state venues.
But many of the statutes that need to be addressed can only be changed through legislative action, not an executive order, said Anna Richter Taylor, spokeswoman for the governor.
"The governor is committed to equal rights," she said.
The governor recently created a task force that will begin meeting next week to analyze current law and consider whether changes are needed to guarantee equal protections regardless of residents' sexual orientation or gender identity.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:36 PM

by The Associated Press
April 5, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET

(Hauppauge, New York) Long Island's only openly gay elected official declared "a great political and personal victory" Wednesday following the approval of a domestic partner registry by the Suffolk County Legislature."This bill goes a long way toward providing a little peace of mind for committed, same-sex couples," said Jon Cooper of Huntington, majority leader of the Suffolk Legislature. He has been in a committed relationship with his partner, Rob Cooper, for nearly 26 years, raising five children together.
"Love makes a family, and it's good to know that this is now recognized by our county government," Cooper said.
The entire 10-member Democratic majority, as well as three Republicans, voted Tuesday to approve the legislation. It allows couples to register to receive a certificate showing that Suffolk County recognizes their relationships and allows partners to qualify for such things as hospital or nursing home visitation rights and control over their deceased loved one's remains.
"No longer will couples have to fear not having access to their partners in hospitals or control over the remains in the event of the death of their loved ones," said Tom Kirdahy, a member of the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission.
Since 2004, Suffolk has offered county employees health benefits for domestic partners and their children. The Long Island towns of Babylon, East Hampton, Huntington, North Hempstead, Southampton and Southold already have domestic partner registry laws on the books.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:35 PM

Don Davis
West Central Tribune - 04/05/2006
ST. PAUL — Cathy Peck held up a picture of her two children when they were young and asked: “Can you tell which one is straight and which one is gay?”
Choking back tears, Peck, and her husband, Wally, told a Minnesota Senate committee that it was tough on them when as a high school senior their daughter told them she was a lesbian.
“We were forced to face our own fears, our own bigotries,” she said.
Added Wally Peck: “Which of your children would you chose to be homosexual? Which one would you chose to be heterosexual?”
The Bemidji couple, who became parents when they lived near Moorhead, delivered some of the most emotional testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee eventually voted 5-4 against an altered proposal to put a gay marriage ban into the state Constitution. The original bill would give voters a chance to decide if the Constitution should define marriage as being between a man and a woman. However, on a 5-4 vote it was amended to allow the Legislature to define marriage, without the fear that judges would overturn its decision. That amended version then lost.
Usually, a vote like the committee took Tuesday would all but end a bill’s chances.
However, Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, is expected to try to bring her proposed constitutional amendment up again this month or next.
The House passed the ban last year and several bills have been introduced that could be used to attempt to force the Senate to take a vote on the concept.
Opponents and supporters overflowed the Senate’s largest committee room, with many watching on closed circuit television in other rooms. More than 225 people were in the Capitol to watch. It has been one of the hottest issues in the past few legislative sessions.
Bachmann said states all around Minnesota have or are considering passing constitutional amendments against gay marriages. Man-woman marriage must be protected from judges, she said.
“This is a race between lawsuits and amendments,” Bachmann said.
“The question always has been and will remain, who will make the decision: Will it be millions of Minnesotans or will it be four judges?” Bachmann asked. “Will we squelch the voice of the people?”

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 11:29 PM

by Mark Worrall, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
April 4, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) A conservative legal group filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday over a resolution passed unanimously by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors that chastised the Catholic Church over threats to bar gays and lesbians from adopting.
The suit was filed by the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two San Francisco Catholic citizens.
In court documents the suit calls the nonbinding resolution a "startling attack by government officials on the Catholic Church, Catholic moral teaching and beliefs, and those who adhere to the tenets of the Catholic faith, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
The lawsuit claims that the First Amendment "forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general."
The court filing states that this "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community."
"The demagoguery and virulent words of this resolution are reminiscent of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothings, which marred our Nation's earlier history," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.
"San Francisco may as well have put up signs at the City limits: 'Faithful Catholics Not Welcomed.'"
The resolution that called on the archdiocese to ignore a Vatican directive on gay adoptions.
"It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need,'' the resolution stated.
It specifically attacked Cardinal William Levada, San Francisco's former Archbishop and now the number two man at the Vatican.
"[He] is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear,'' the resolution said.
The resolution was passed after current San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer told Catholic Charities to follow the Vatican direction on gay adoption.
Niederauer's directive was his first statement on gay adoption since the Boston announcement that it would close its adoption service rather than following Massachusetts' anti-bias laws that make it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians and followed a statement by Levada, now the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the Church opposes giving children to gays and lesbians.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco are abusing their authority as government officials and misusing the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church," said Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the suit.
"This egregious abuse of power is an outrage and a clear violation of the First Amendment."
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:31 AM

by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
April 4, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET

(Washington) Ford Motor Company shareholders will vote next month on a resolution to drop protections for LGBT workers from the company's human resources regulations.
The company had fought the motion, submitted by shareholder Robert Hurley of Alton, Ill, but when Alton took the issue to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the commission said the automaker must put the resolution to a vote at Ford's annual meeting May 11.
The motion calls for Ford to change its policy to exclude any reference to sexual interests, activities or orientation.
Ford had argued to the SEC that the proposal would hurt the company's ability to recruit and could hurt sales to gays and lesbians.
The SEC rejected the argument.
Ford said on Tuesday that it would comply with the SEC directive and include the resolution in its package and proxies to shareholders.
"We will include it, and we will have our comments in the proxy statement," said company spokesperson Becky Sanch.
The possibility of ending LGBT protections to workers delighted the American Family Association which is boycotting Ford over the company's advertising in the gay media.
"I find Ford's logic in asking the SEC to omit the resolution interesting," AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said in a statement.
"In essence Ford is saying they are concerned that a boycott by homosexual groups would financially hurt the company, but the boycott by the pro-family groups will not."
The AFA and 18 other conservative groups last moth reinstated their boycott of Ford saying that the company had "reneged on an agreement to stop funding groups that promote same-sex marriage."
The conservative Christian group launched a nationwide boycott of Ford last May over the automaker's support for LGBT issues. Weeks later it put the boycott on hold after dealers asked for time to see if the AFA complaints "could be addressed by them in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company."
In early December, following a meeting with the AFA, Ford, through its ad agency, began notifying gay media outlets that it was canceling all ads for Jaguar and Land Rover but would continue, at least for now, to run ads for Volvo.
The AFA ended its threatened boycott declaring victory.
Major LGBT civil rights groups immediately demanding a meeting with company executives. The groups demanded to know if a secret agreement had been made with the American Family Association to end the company's long commitment to the gay community.
The groups also sought a commitment from Ford on funding to LGBT civil rights groups and to resume advertising in the media.
A day later Ford issued a statement saying that it would feature all of its brands in a 2006 ad campaign in LGBT publications. Previously Ford was advertising only its Land Rover and Jaguar brands in the gay press.
As for financially supporting lgbt rights groups the company said in its statement that "while we still support certain events, I know you understand that the business situation will limit the extent of our support in all communities in 2006."
In addition to LGBT pressure at least one major shareholder also exerted force on the company- the New York State Local Retirement System, the biggest state pension plan in the country.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:29 AM

by The Associated Press
April 4, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) The Arizona Senate has given preliminary approval to a proposal that would give married couples preference over single people in adopting children.Supporters say the proposal is needed because married couples are in a position to provide children with a balanced upbringing.
Gay rights advocates say the measure would make it harder for gay and lesbian couples to adopt, because Arizona law outlaws same-sex marriages. Even so, the bill makes no mentions of same-sex couples.
The bill, approved in a 16-13 vote, now goes to a formal vote in the Senate.
Republican Sen. Robert Blendu of Litchfield Park, a supporter of the bill, said there's no replacement for a married couple raising a child.
"A woman has something to give to a child that a man can't give, and I believe a man has something for a child that a man can't give," Blendu said.
Democratic Sen. Robert Cannell of Yuma, an opponent of the bill, said there are plenty of examples of successful adoptions by single parents and that studies show that children raised by gay couples did just as well as families headed by heterosexual parents.
Ron Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, pointed out the bill contains exceptions, such as cases where single people who would be adopting a relative.
"Ideally it should be a man and a woman, a mother and father, that we would be striving for, but there are exceptions," Johnson said.
Amy Kobeta, director of public affairs for the Arizona Human Rights Fund, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, said the bill is a sneaky way to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
"They are also making sure they are taking a hit at qualified gay and lesbian parents," Kobeta said.
If approved by the Senate, the bill would have to return to the House, which approved the bill, to approve changes made by the Senate.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:28 AM

Posted: 4/4/2006 6:58:50 PM
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - A lawyer for a gay couple suing for the right to wed told a federal appeals court today that "discrimination" in the law is preventing their nuptials. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth U-S Circuit Court of Appeals -- meeting in Pasadena today -- appeared unmoved by the argument and hinted that it may toss the case out on procedural grounds. The case was brought by two California gay men who Orange County authorities denied a marriage license. They sued, declaring California's ban on same-sex marriage and federal laws against it were unconstitutional because gays and lesbians were treated differently than straight couples. The judges did not indicate when they would rule.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:26 AM

April 3rd, 2006
Kristin Wolber, News Assistant

Seth Petersen/SPPS
Former mayor, activist square off
Jason West, New Patlz, N.Y. mayor, and conservative activist Robert Knights butted heads in “The Great Gay Marriage Debate” Friday night, discussing not only the morality of marriage between the same sex, but the very nature of homosexuality itself.The debate was the culmination of LGBTA's Gay Awareness Week. Rather than just having a single speaker come to support gay marriage, LGBTA decided on a debate format so both sides of the issue could be presented.“This week is about raising awareness surrounding the gay and lesbian community. Part of this includes portraying both sides of the fence,” said Matt Streeter, gay awareness week chair and sophomore computer science major. “The point of debate is to teach everyone something new.”West is the Green-party mayor who, in 2004, married 25 gay couples before courts intervened to stop further proceedings. Knight is a conservative activist and director of the Culture and Family Institute who previously debated Sarah Weddington, one of the lawyers who established the legality of abortion in America through the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.West and Knight failed to agree on any issue, but both presented a unique view on gay marriage.Even though there is no genetic evidence, homosexuality is something a person is born with, said West.“Sexual orientation is as born into you as skin color,” he said.Marriage is a cultural definition that changes over the years, West said. The idea of “romantic love” is a fairly new concept. However, marriage should be about finding someone you want to spend the rest of your life with, he said.“Marriage is the act of making public what is already written in two people's hearts,” West said. He closed with the idea that since gay marriage doesn't fundamentally affect heterosexual people it is somewhat “ludicrous” that the debate was between two heterosexual males.Knight focused on the tradition of marriage and family and felt that allowing gays to marry would destroy the foundation of marriage in American society.Describing gay marriage as a fiction, Knight said that the idea was not progressive, rather a retreat back to sexual anarchy.“Gay marriage is the fire burning across the American rug,” Knight said.Homosexuality has many health consequences, especially in terms of sexually transmitted diseases, Knight said. Syphilis is up 60 percent in this country, and 80 percent of that increase is among young gay men. Fourteen percent of 18-24 year old gay men are HIV positive, Knight said.“There are a couple things you never hear in the media,” Knight said, “And that is the consequences of homosexuality, the health consequences, and the fact that people can change.”Students reflected mixed opinions on the speakers.“Both of them missed the main point of marriage, which is children,” said Shakur Abdullah, senior biotechnology major. “Some of the other issues, like being able to visit in the hospital shouldn't really be issues, but marriage and adoption (should be).”Though many students came out in support of gay marriage, some felt West did not do a good job asserting his views.“I have to inherently agree with Mayor Jason West because I'm gay, and quite frankly because I believe in a separation of church and state and equal rights for all Americans,” said John Gray Williams, junior public and urban affairs major. “However, I don't think he did his best at debating Robert Knight. Knight was very assertive, while West was trying not to step on his opponent's toes. Since he is fighting for equal rights, he needs to be steadfast in his arguments.”The LGBTA hoped that students attending the debate would have a clearer perspective on this issue come voting time.“I expect to keep this fresh in people's minds so when they go out and vote they will have a more educated and aware perspective surrounding the debate,” Streeter said.Knight has debated this issue approximately 15 times at various universities, including Cornell, Berkley, Kent State and North Carolina State.“I will say this is one of the most polite audiences I've ever had, and that's a tribute to Virginia Tech. Everybody listened, asked good questions, and I think we had a real debate because of it,” Knight said.Ultimately, West said that it was up to the students to assess the truth of the matter. “Ideally, the point is that you should just do your own thinking. I think that's the key to this - not relying on the people speaking to tell you what's moral. You should decide that yourself.”

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:25 AM

The Minnesota senate judiciary committee on Tuesday turned aside a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and its legal equivalents in the state. The committee didn't directly reject the proposed amendment, which has been an emotional issue in recent years. Instead, it rejected a reworked version of the amendment. The new version would have prohibited the judicial branch from having jurisdiction over defining marriage, stipulating that the legislature has the power. The measure failed on a 5–4 vote in the committee, which has a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party majority.
The vote came after some 90 minutes of testimony on the original proposed amendment. At a packed hearing open only to ticketed observers, gay rights supporters pointed out that the state already has a law outlawing same-sex marriage and that the state constitution is not the place to deny rights to citizens.
Backers of the measure said that traditional marriage is under assault by judicial decisions around the country and that the constitution is the only way to ensure a judge doesn't overturn Minnesota's law.
Sponsors of the amendment knew they faced long odds in the judiciary committee and have vowed to keep pushing to bring the fight directly to the floor of the senate. But that body's DFL majority has repeatedly united against such efforts.
Even if it's not on the November ballot, same-sex marriage is still likely to be part of the debate in some election contests. Amendment supporters have promised to use the issue against DFL senators from rural districts, where opposition to marriage equality is generally higher.
On the other side, some suburban Republicans have distanced themselves from the amendment, cognizant of the socially moderate swing voters that they need to win reelection. (AP)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:23 AM

April 05, 2006U.S. senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, a leading Democratic contender in the 2008 presidential race, has revealed that he supports giving gay and lesbian couples full marriage equality. According to a statement released on Tuesday, Feingold said over the weekend that he strongly opposes the proposed civil unions and marriage ban facing Wisconsin voters this fall and supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.
"As I said at the Kenosha County listening session, gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry and have access to the same rights, privileges, and benefits that straight couples currently enjoy,” Feingold said in the statement. “Denying people this basic American right is the kind of discrimination that has no place in our laws, especially in a progressive state like Wisconsin. The time has come to end this discrimination and the politics of divisiveness that has become part of this issue.”
The move was immediately praised by gay rights leaders and political activists across the country. “Senator Feingold's announcement today is more than an important step forward in the struggle for equal rights,” said Matt Foreman, executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “At long last, progressive and fair-minded Americans have a leader taking the ethically and morally correct stand for marriage equality—no equivocation, waffling, or hairsplitting.”
“Senator Feingold's public support for marriage fairness is the type of leadership this country so desperately needs and deserves,” added Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. “He understands that America is at its best when all members of our society are treated equally."
Feingold is not the first U.S. senator to come out for full marriage equality—he joins Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Ron Wyden of Oregon. But he is the first major contender for president to do so. “In the past we’ve had presidential contenders come out for a more general concession of equality,” Evan Wolfson, executive director for Freedom to Marry, told The Advocate. “Now you have a major presidential contender going all the way. And he’s doing so in a way that is very intelligent. He’s not just saying 'I’m for it.' He makes the case for it. He will win the support of those who agree with him. But he will also win the respect of those who don’t agree with him. He is giving people something to work with.”
Wolfson noted that in the past year leading candidates for major offices have been clamoring to publicly support marriage equality. “Candidates for governor in California, Connecticut, and New York have all come out for marriage this year,” he said. “These are young, aspiring, ambitious candidates, and they have determined it’s right to come out in favor of what they believe in.”
Jo Wyrick, interim executive director for the gay political group National Stonewall Democrats, said Feingold's statement is part of a larger movement. "Americans are quickly moving toward full support for marriage equality, and we are seeing a new generation of Democrats emerge whose leadership will help turn that support into law,” Wyrick said. “Senator Feingold understands that religious institutions should have the freedom to marry adherents according to their interpretation of their faith and not the dictates of politicians.” (The Advocate)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:22 AM

By Ross Sneyd, Associated Press Writer March 31, 2006
MONTPELIER, Vt. --An Essex Junction lesbian couple was sorely disappointed Thursday that a Massachusetts court would not let their 2004 marriage stand.
An advocacy group said it was disappointed, too, but the ruling renewed its resolve to work toward full marriage rights for same-sex couples in Vermont.
Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre were the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to overturn a 1913 law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.
Although Vermont was the first state in the nation recognizing same-sex relationships through civil unions, it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
"We're really disappointed," said Bobbi Cote-Whitacre. "We thought we had a very strong case."
The two women were married in Provincetown, Mass., on May 18, 2004, just a day after it became legal for the first time in the United States for same-sex couples to marry.
But state officials quickly shut down marriages among couples who did not plan to live permanently in Massachusetts. The Cote-Whitacres were among eight couples who sued.
Vermont advocates of allowing all couples to marry said the Massachusetts decision inspired them to renew their efforts closer to home.
"The Massachusetts decision lends renewed urgency to our work," Beth Robinson, chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said in a statement. "We can't rely on other states to eliminate discrimination here in Vermont. We know we can rely on the fairness and common sense of Vermonters to do that, and that's where our focus remains."
A bill that would permit gay and lesbian couples to marry was introduced in the House earlier this year but it has not gotten a hearing and is unlikely to move before adjournment in the next two months or so.
Bobbi Cote-Whitacre said full marriage rights were the only thing that would make her and her partner feel secure because of the social acceptance of the term and the potential for federal benefits that flow from it. They joined in a civil union in 2000, but she said it's not the same.
"We've been together 39 years and we're kind of that generation where you grow up, you find the person you want to spend your life with and you get married," she said. "And we keep trying to do that."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony # 8:21 AM

By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter

It's been more than three decades since Paul Barwick and John Singer walked into the King County auditor's office and, amid the glare of news cameras, requested — and were refused — a marriage license.
In the annals of the gay-rights movement, the men were revolutionaries: Thirty-four years ago this month, they became the first gay couple in the state, and the second in the country, to sue over the right to marry.
A King County Superior Court judge and later the state Court of Appeals rejected their claim that state law denying them the right to marry was unconstitutional. Their case, Singer v. Hara, has become case law — cited by gay-rights lawyers as an outdated reference point and by their opponents as an enduring legacy.
Now 59, and living in San Francisco, Barwick awaits with particular interest a ruling from the Washington Supreme Court on a same-sex marriage lawsuit by 19 gay and lesbian couples who have taken up the fight he and the late Singer began.
"What's surprising to me is that this is a question now that can go either way," Barwick said by telephone from the Bay Area, where he works as an administrative assistant for a building-permit processor.
Same-sex unions are no longer uncharted territory: Two Superior Court judges in Washington have ruled in favor of such unions, and Massachusetts already grants same-sex marriage.
"Now it's a serious question," Barwick said. "Back then it was a lark — a way of getting people to realize there were gays here. We were an invisible minority. I never thought we could get this far, this fast."
Fast?
"Yeah, it's been fast," he said. "We're talking about the g-g-g-g-gay period," he said, referring to the reaction of a Seattle city employee in the early 1970s when, in a telephone conversation, he said he was calling from the Gay Community Center.
"She's literally dropped the phone on the floor and I heard her gasping to a co-worker, 'the g-g-g-g-gay people are calling.' That's not bad for 30 years."
Commune
In the early 1970s, Barwick and Singer lived among other young gay activists in a commune on Capitol Hill.
Barwick had served three years in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War era and worked as an emergency dispatcher for the State Patrol before enrolling at Olympic College in Bremerton to further his career in law enforcement.
There, he revealed to a campus nurse that he thought he might be gay and later outed himself in front of 200 fellow students.
That done, Barwick said, he knew he could not return to the State Patrol and instead moved to Seattle to join the activists.
There he met Singer, a crusader for gay and racial rights who in 1973 changed his name to Faygele benMiriam. Singer wore dresses to his job at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And when the agency fired him in 1972, he filed a discrimination suit against it and five years later persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate his firing. He died of lung cancer in 2000 at the age of 55.
Barwick said the two men were in a "close non-monogamous relationship, closer than any other two people in the house, but not necessarily in a love relationship."
In the early 1970s, Singer was the only one in the house who worked — bringing home paychecks that allowed the others to be activists. In addition to the Gay Community Center, they established a halfway house for gay parolees and a counseling center for sexual minorities. They organized demonstrations against the Vietnam War.
"We were 'here, queer and weren't gonna take it anymore' and all that," Barwick said.
Though the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York were a catalyst for gay activism across the country, most gays remained in the closet. "People could know each other for years and yet not tell each other their names."
In 1971, when gay activists invited state Sen. Pete Francis to speak at the community center, the Seattle Democrat told them about efforts to update state laws and with a wink and nod explained that marriage was now defined in laws as a contract between two people — not specifying a man and woman.
Request denied
On Sept. 20, 1971, the men walked into the King County auditor's office and requested a marriage license.
Though they were turned down, Barwick said, the action itself was significant. "There were an awful lot of young people who saw this on the news and called to say they'd never met another gay person.
"They thought they were the only ones. At times when I thought that maybe my life was all screwed up, those messages made it all worthwhile."
Lloyd Hara, the auditor, contacted the prosecutor's office to see if what the men were asking for could be done legally.
"It was a very unusual request," said Hara, now a Seattle Port commissioner.
The response was the same eight couples would receive 33 years later when, in 2004, they, too, sought and were refused licenses to marry.
The eight couples sued the county on grounds that denying them marriage licenses was a constitutional violation.
They prevailed, as did 11 other same-sex couples who sued the state that same year. The two cases were merged and argued a year ago before the Supreme Court.
Sued in 1972
Singer v. Hara never made it that far.
Barwick and Singer sued Hara on April 27, 1972, claiming denial of a marriage license violated their constitutional rights under the recently enacted Equal Rights Amendment, which barred discrimination based on gender.
Personally, Hara said recently, he agreed with them.
"As a person of color, I've always been concerned about discrimination against anyone. I thought it was wrong then and I still firmly feel the same way."
But a King County Superior Court judge rejected Barwick and Singer's claims of discrimination, and the state Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, saying the refusal was "based upon the state's recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children."
The arguments are similar to those in the 1998 enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, a state statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And they are the same arguments lawyers for the state and a group of interveners made in defending DOMA before the State Supreme Court.
"We went to court, got turned down. Went to court, got turned down. It [suing] all sounded good on paper," Barwick said. "But who were we kidding?"
They decided not to appeal, partly because they were out of money and partly because they didn't want to set a bad precedent, mindful that a rejection from the State Supreme Court could shut down the debate, Barwick said.
In San Francisco
These days, Barwick said he's not in a relationship, or even particularly active in the gay community.
From his perch in the Mission District of a city where, he said, "it's practically a requirement to be gay," he's seen change sweep the gay movement.
People are more aware of gay relatives, friends and neighbors, he said, and on that front, those who oppose gay rights are losing.
"What it takes is us being out and open and people getting to know who we really are."

What do you think?