|
Friday, June 30, 2006
Former Wisconsin Governors Urge Rejection Of Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 29, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Madison, Wisconsin) Four former Wisconsin governors - three Democrats and one Republican - are calling on voters to reject a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and possibly void domestic partner benefits. "We oppose the proposed constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage. As former governors, we believe the ban runs contrary to the values of freedom and fairness that make Wisconsin great," the former governors said in statement. The governors, Patrick Lucey, Martin Schreiber and Tony Earl, all Democrats, and Republican Gov. Lee Sherman Dreyfus, said that state law already limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. "The founding document of our state is designed to lay the foundation for our government and protect individual freedoms. The civil unions and marriage ban is wrong because it would mark the first time we have ever amended our constitution to limit freedom," said the statement released by LGBT rights group Fair Wisconsin. The governors called the proposed amendment "unnecessarily harsh and far reaching." "We urge the people of Wisconsin to carefully consider the civil unions and marriage ban, and the impact it will have on families who live in our state. We hope you will join us in voting no in November," the statement said. The proposed amendment would add 43 words to the constitution declaring the state recognizes only marriage between one man and one woman and does not grant a similar legal status to unmarried individuals, such as civil unions. The measure passed the legislature earlier this year and is scheduled to appear on the ballot in November. Critics say the amendment would outlaw benefits such as health care provided by many municipal governments and private companies to partners of gay employees. Supporters acknowledge that if the amendment passes the courts would have to sort out what benefits could be offered to gay and unmarried couples. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Cardinal: Vatican Fears Gay Suit
by The Associated Press June 29, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (Vatican City) The Vatican is worried its opposition to same sex marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official says. Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions. ``We worry especially that, with current laws, speaking in defense of life and the rights of families is becoming in some societies sort of a crime against the state,'' Lopez Trujillo told the Roman Catholic newsmagazine Famiglia Cristiana for its issue scheduled to hit the stands Thursday. ``The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard,'' the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Roman Catholic church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9. Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws. Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center said the chances of the church being punished for stating its beliefs are slim to none, at least in the United States, though its stances could lead to Roman Catholic organizations losing state funding. ``I cannot fathom a religious organization being punished for speaking its belief against abortion or gay marriage,'' said Feldblum, a veteran gay rights advocate. ``What is illuminating is not the reality of the legal penalties they face but an acknowledgment that public morality is shifting under their feet,'' Feldblum said. In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada legalized same-sex marriage, while Britain and several other European countries now give such couples the right to form partnerships that entitle them to most of the same tax and pension rights as married couples _ laws the church is firmly against. In the interview, Lopez Trujillo reiterated that under church rules, women who have abortions, the doctors and nurses who help them and the father, if he is going along with it, are excommunicated. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. ``It's the same thing. Destroying the embryo is equivalent to abortion,'' Lopez Trujillo said. He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights. ``It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right,'' the cardinal said. He also compared gay marriage to ``absolute emptiness,'' saying the only possible couple is made up of a man and a woman. Earlier this month, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a 57-page document in which it said the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today's world. It also lashed out against contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage. The Vatican's document did not break any new ground but marked the first sweeping comment on the issues during Pope Benedict's papacy. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Marriage ban fight heats up ahead of Massachusetts convention
The push is on in Massachuetts as a scheduled vote on a proposed ban on same-sex marriage looms in the state legislature. On Wednesday Republican governor Mitt Romney and Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley held a press conference to call on lawmakers to allow the vote amid indications that gay rights advocates are prepared to use procedural tactics to kill the measure, The Boston Globe reports. Pro-gay lawmakers on Beacon Hill could muster the support needed to prevent the measure from coming up for debate. Such an outcome would abruptly end the long campaign to place the ban before voters in 2008. "We urge that the legislators let everyone's voice be heard," said O'Malley in his first appearance at a statehouse press conference. "Let the people vote." Advocates for same-sex marriage say they will do whatever it takes to make sure the amendment dies, leaving intact a 2003 state supreme judicial court decision that made Massachusetts the first state to allow same-sex weddings. "Every possible option is on the table as far as we're concerned," Marc Solomon, campaign director for the group MassEquality, told reporters after the press conference. Romney and religious leaders have joined forces before on the issue, but O'Malley's appearance at the statehouse underscored how crucial this ballot effort has become for same-sex marriage opponents after years of fighting. If the amendment fizzles, it would be a major setback for the opponents, forcing them to decide whether to mount a new challenge in future years. To reach the 2008 ballot, the amendment needs the support of at least 50 legislators at the July 12 constitutional convention, a joint session of the house and senate, and then at least 50 votes at a similar convention during the 2007–2008 legislative session. According to The G lobe, both sides have previously said that the amendment has the 50 votes needed. As a result, advocates of same-sex marriage would need another route to block the amendment. For example, a lawmaker could try to adjourn the convention before the ban comes up for debate. The amendment is at the bottom of a crowded agenda, and adjournment requires a simple majority vote. (The Advocate) What do you think?
NEA Weakens Resolution Supporting Homosexual Marriage
By Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer June 27, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - The National Education Association (NEA) has dropped an amendment that was going to ask its convention delegates to support homosexual marriage and civil unions in all 50 states.Cybercast News Service has learned that an NEA delegate earlier this month leaked the language of the amendment to conservative groups and the resulting protest apparently prompted the NEA to substitute it with a weaker version.Instead of asking delegates to endorse homosexual marriage and civil unions across the board, the substitute asks convention delegates to endorse homosexual domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage in states that already " legally recognize" the relationships.Massachusetts is currently the only state that legally recognizes same sex marriage. Connecticut and Vermont have legalized civil unions. Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, California and the District of Columbia offer homosexual couples some form of spousal-like benefits.NEA delegates, who have previously approved language stating that "a diverse society enriches all individuals," are now likely to vote on the substitute resolution during the union's annual convention in Orlando June 29 to July 6.Andy Linebaugh, a spokesman for the NEA, told Cybercast News Service that "leadership of the NEA has no interest in advancing a position on same-sex marriage." When asked about the substitute amendment, Linebaugh first stated that he had "no idea what you're referring to." But when he was read the language of the substitute and asked whether it would come up for a vote at the NEA convention, Linebaugh said he believed it would, "but it has to go through the process" first of being debated.Linebaugh said the decision to change the amendment was not a result of any protest by conservatives. However, two days after the American Family Association issued a statement complaining that the "Teacher's union begins plans to promote homosexual marriage in public schools," the substitute was distributed by Ohio NEA President Gary Allen in an email.In the June 21 email, Allen told his membership that "there is a new resolution up for discussion at the July 2006 NEA Representative Assembly.""We didn't respond to the AFA by changing the original amendment," Linebaugh insisted. "We responded to the AFA by saying the NEA has no position on same-sex marriage."Linebaugh declined to address the original resolution that formed the basis of the AFA's complaint, offering only that the current amendment "clearly does not endorse or support same-sex marriages."In an undated release posted on the website of its Kansas affiliate, NEA president Reg Weaver said the AFA had engaged in a "malicious e-mail campaign distorting the facts related to proposed amendment changes."He added that the NEA "has no position on same-sex marriages, and leadership is not seeking to establish such a position."Linebaugh refused to explain how, as Weaver claimed, the AFA distorted the meaning of the original amendment. "You'd have to ask them how they misinterpreted it," he said. "I'm not saying anything about distorting any meaning."Dr. Warren Throckmortion, a psychologist from Grove City College in Pennsylvania who counsels homosexuals on changing their sexual orientation, told Cybercast News Service that the new amendment has been "cleverly wordsmithed" to voice support for same-sex unions in states that already recognize those unions. He said members of the union "could look at these resolutions and take from it support for gay marriage.""I'm not sure why they would need to say anything," Throckmorton said. "It already exists in the states. Why does the NEA need to make a statement to that effect?" What do you think?
It's two people pledging love, fidelity
By LLEWELLYN KING www.kingpublishing.comI grew up with the prejudices of my generation. One was against homosexuality. In the prejudice lexicon, homosexuals were unnatural and degenerate and, of course, they perpetrated illegal acts. When I left the cloisters where certainty reigned, I soon changed my view. Too many gifted people, too many nice people and too many of my friends were gay. I accepted homosexuality as a parallel lifestyle. Yet when I first heard proposals about gay marriage, my initial reaction was that was too much. I do not know any gay couples who enshrine their union in countries where it is legal. But I have come to believe that gays' desire to marry -- particularly among mature gays -- is as real as it is for heterosexuals. Marriage is a public acknowledgment of private commitment. And the desire for that commitment seems to know no gender. Andrew Sullivan, the blogger who is gay, has written eloquently about longing for the fulfillment of marriage. Now I find a charming article in The Oldie, in which the author, Charles Osborne, describes his civil union with his partner, Ken Thomson, in England, after 42 years of cohabitation: ''And so in December 2005, I went down on one bended and somewhat arthritic knee, and proposed marriage -- or to be more accurate, civil partnership, to Ken. For some reason or other, he immediately accepted my proposal, and we began to plan the actual event,'' Osborne wrote in the British magazine. Clearly, older gay couples do not differ from their heterosexual counterparts in wanting the companionship and serenity that marriage affords in the middle course of life. Those aspects of the gay life that disturb the heterosexual world fall away with maturity. I speak of promiscuity and the culture of the bath house. By chance I have just read two autobiographies by notable gays who are upfront, even distressingly so, about their early lives. One was by British conservative politician and journalist Matthew Parris, and the other by American writer Edmund White. I was a little disgusted by their anonymous sex, until it occurred to me that heterosexual men by the millions patronize prostitutes. Despite the political posturing that has attended the Senate debate on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, the concept of gay marriage is well out of the closet. There is no need for us to rush to legalize gay marriage, it should be an evolutionary process; a slow recognition of the humanity of those who are other than ourselves. I suspect, as has been the case with gay acceptance, that gay marriage acceptance will come first from young people. It is not long ago that homosexuality was illegal. Legalizing it gave full citizenship to gays -- and, guess what? -- citizens like to get married. Indestructible institution The thrust of the arguments in favor of the marriage amendment is that gay marriage represents a grave threat to traditional marriage. Maybe, instead, it points to the indestructibility of the institution. Andrew Sullivan promotes marriage in his blog with a passion not common. One of his blog readers wrote: ``Marriage is absolutely nothing like being partners/boyfriends/lovers. It is so incredibly richer than I ever imagined it could be. Even though our marriage is Canadian and isn't recognized in the U.S., it is recognized by our families and friends and co-workers, and most importantly by us. You have no idea the treasure that has been kept from gays and lesbians because we haven't been able to marry. It isn't just a one-time act in front of an audience, it is a life-altering event joining two people as one.'' If that is an attack on the institution of marriage as we now know it, bring it on. What do you think?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Conservative Religious Leaders Demand Cancellation Of World Pride
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 28, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Jerusalem) Conservative Jewish, Christian and Moslem leaders in Jerusalem are demanding the Israeli government step in and block World Pride celebrations scheduled to take place this summer. "We do so out of our great love and respect for Jerusalem, the only city in the world that the Bible decrees as holy," said a statement from three evangelical Christian groups - Christian Friends of Israel, Bridges For Peace and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem. The open letter to the government followed a rare joint press conference earlier in the week organized by a well-known rabbi and a Moslem cleric. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, an American, and sheik Ibrahim Sarsur and Abas Zkoor - both Arab-Israelis and members of the Knesset - warned there could be violence if World Pride goes ahead. "If they dare to approach the Temple Mount during the parade – they will do so over our dead bodies," said Sarsur. Last week a member of the ruling Kadima Party called for gays to be banned from entering the Knesset. An international gay youth group is planning on visit the Israeli Parliament during World Gay Pride Week in August to see how the Israeli government works. In a letter to Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik, MK Otniel Schneller said that the visit would turn the chamber into "Sodom and Gomorra." Itzik rejected the call. Organizers of World Pride say they are undeterred. World Pride will be held in Jerusalem from August 6 - 12 and is expected to draw thousands of people from around the world. The event which is held in a different world city every four years was to have been in Jerusalem last summer but postponed due to the Israeli pullout from the Gaza. Jerusalem Open House, Israel's largest LGBT civil rights organization which is organizing this summer's event, is working on a wide range of activities leading up to the big parade. Major events include an Multifaith LGBT Clergy Conference, an outdoor festival, Human Rights Day, LGBT Health Day, an International LGBT Youth conference, and an LGBT Film Festival. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Romney: Vote To Ban Gay Marriage 'Democracy'
by The Associated Press June 28, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET (Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, renewing his support for a ballot question banning gay marriage, said Wednesday it's the job of voters - not the courts or lawmakers - to define what constitutes a civil right. "Who's going to tell us what a civil right is and what's not? Well, the people will," Romney said in calling on lawmakers to allow a vote on a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The State House vote is scheduled for July 12. Supporters have long cast same-sex marriage as a civil right that should not be subject to a popular vote, likening it to the desegregation battles of the 1950s and 1960s, where the courts played a central role in expanding rights for blacks. Yet Romney, during a news conference attended by Cardinal Sean O'Malley and other religious and civil leaders, said that in a democracy, nothing is off-limits to voters, even the definition of civil rights. "We have a Constitution. We can look in there and say, 'Does it say here you can vote on matters unless someone can define them as civil rights?' No," said the Republican governor, a graduate of Harvard Law School who is mulling a presidential run in 2008. "It says you vote on all matters in this country and we'll decide what is a civil right and what's not. So, fundamentally, we come back to the principle that the people speak." State Democratic Rep. Byron Rushing, a supporter of gay marriage, said the civil rights of minority groups should not be subject to the whims of the majority. "He's absolutely wrong when he says the definition of civil rights is a definition that is made by all the people," Rushing said. "It is not reasonable to ask all the people to decide what a civil rights issue is. If it was left up to popular referenda in the 1950s and 1960s, we would not have had any of the civil rights laws passed." In a call to The Associated Press after the news conference, Romney appeared to temper his public remarks. "I'm not saying that civil rights should be up to a popular vote," Romney said, although he added, "The Constitution does not prohibit the people from making any decision. The Constitution allows for the people to overrule the judiciary, the executive or the legislative" branches. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Pentagon Apologizes For Calling Homosexuality A 'Disorder'
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 28, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Washington) The Pentagon on Wednesday apologized for classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Earlier this month it was revealed that a Pentagon document listing various "disorders" included the reference to homosexuality decades after mental health experts abandoned that position. Alongside homosexuality in the Pentagon document that outlined retirement or other discharge policies for service members were mental retardation and personality disorders. The revelation caused a maelstrom of criticism, particularly from gay rights organizations and the American Psychiatric Association. "Homosexuality should not have been characterized as a mental disorder in an appendix of a procedural instruction," the Pentagon said in a statement on Wednesday. "A clarification will be issued over the next few days." But the statement also noted that whether or not the description should have been in the document out gays cannot serve in the military. "Notwithstanding its inclusion, we find no practical impact since that appendix simply listed factors that do not constitute a physical disability, and homosexuality of course does not," the statement said. The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays. A total of 742 military personnel were discharged in 2005 under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on openly gay service members, up from 668 discharges among the services in 2004. A bi-partisan coalition in Congress now supports legislation to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1059), introduced in March 2005 by Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) now has about 120 supporters, including five Republican lawmakers. Meehan’s legislation would repeal the military’s ban and allow lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel to serve openly in the armed forces. The Pentagon's classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder brought a stern rebuke from the APA last week. "Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 - a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Mother Of Murdered Trans Teen Pleads With Calif. Senate To Pass 'Gay Panic' Bill
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 28, 2006 - 11:00 am ET (Sacramento, California) The mother of Gwen Araujo made a passionate plea Tuesday before a California Senate committee for support of legislation curbing the so-called gay panic defense. "Since my daughter was killed, my family and I have spent literally thousands of hours working hard to make sure that California is a state where everyone is respected and treated fairly," Sylvia Guerrero. told the Senate Committee on Public Safety. The Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act would place restrictions on the way the defense tactic is presented to juries. If a defense attorney attempted to use the argument that a client committed a crime out of panic because the victim were gay or trans a judge would be required to instruct the jury that the use of societal bias, including so-called "panic strategies," to influence the proceedings of a criminal trial is inconsistent with the public policy of the State of California. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Sally Lieber (D-San Jose) also includes funding for training district attorneys in how to address attempts to use the “panic strategy.” “By providing funding to train district attorney’s on how to effectively deal with the so-called “panic strategy” and telling juries that they cannot allow bias against the victim due to their gender, sexual orientation, race or religion to influence their verdict, this legislation is an important step forward in the effort to ensure that those who commit hate crimes are properly punished,” said Equality California Legislative Advocate Alice Kessler who testified along with Sylvia Guerrero. The bill passed by a 4-2 margin and now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee in August. The measure passed the Assembly in January. Araujo was a transgender 17-year old teenager from Newark, Calif., who was attacked and killed in 2002. The men beat her to death and then buried her in a shallow desert grave. On January 27, 2006, three of the four defendants were sentenced in the slaying. Michael Magidson and Jose Merel, were convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life and Jason Cazares, received a six-year term. Defense lawyers claimed their clients acted out of panic after having sex with the teen and then discovering she was born biologically male. The fourth man, Jaron Nabors, pleaded guilty and received an 11-year sentence in exchange for testifying against his accomplices. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Amnesty International Slams Latvian Anti-Gay Move
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 28, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (New York City) Amnesty International on Tuesday accused the Latvian Parliament of violating European Union laws which guarantee the rights of gays and lesbians. In an open letter to the Parliament Amnesty said called on the Latvian government to rewrite its labor law to include sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination. Last week Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga vetoed the labor protection bill for not including LGBT workers and sent it back to Parliament. The legislation was originally passed in 2004 as a condition of European Union membership and as required by the EU contained protections for gays. The law was never implemented and this month after a heated debate Parliament voted to remove the LGBT protections and pass the revised bill. Debate on the amendment was filled with homophobia with members of the majority Christian Democratic Party calling gays "degenerate", "sick" and in need of being "cured". The vote made Latvia the only EU member state without legislation specifically outlawing discrimination at work and in housing on the grounds of sexual orientation. In returning the bill to Parliament lawmakers can either add the gay protections or pass it again and resubmit it to the President. If she were to veto the bill a second time Parliament could then attempt to override the veto. In its letter to Parliament Amnesty International reminded the Latvian authorities that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a human rights violation. "Now is a critical moment -- the Latvian Parliament has a second chance to demonstrate its commitment to protecting all of its citizens from arbitrary discrimination," said Michael Heflin, Director of OUTfront, Amnesty International USA's Program on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) human rights. "The Parliament's continued failure to take this action violates fundamental human rights principles and Latvia's international obligations." Earlier this year Latvia amended its constitution to bar same-sex marriage, the latest in a series of recent anti-gay moves in the country. In July 2005, the Latvian authorities initially withdrew permission for the LGBT community to hold a gay pride march. Only after the organizers of the march made an official complaint to the Riga administrative court to protest the ban was the march permitted. Despite support of including gays in the labor bill by Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis and Foreign Minister Artis Pabrik Amnesty said it still is concerned about the way issues relating to the LGBT community are debated in Latvia, both by some officials and by the wider public. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Spain To Have Its First Military Gay Wedding
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 27, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Madrid) Two gay privates in Spain's Air Force will marry this summer the ETA news agency reported on Tuesday. The wedding will be the first same-sex marriage for the country's military. The men's family names were not identified but the men share the first name Alberto and are based in Seville. "We know we are in the armed forces and this is touchy because we are not gardeners but rather soldiers. I know there are superior officers who will make life difficult for me, and they are already doing so," said one of the men told a Seville radio station. The military said that it was aware of the wedding but considered it a private affair. Nevertheless, it told the men they could wear their uniforms. The couple said nevertheless that they will wear civilian clothes "so as not to antagonize the military." Same-sex marriage became legal in Spain last year. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
World Anglican Church At Impasse Over Gays
by The Associated Press June 27, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (London) The leader of the world's feuding Anglicans on Tuesday urged them to work toward a structure for co-existing despite differences on the roles of gays and women and over the authority of the Bible. ``There is no way in which the Anglican communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment,'' Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote to the Anglican communion's 38 primates, including Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, head of the Anglican Church of Canada. ``Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are,'' Williams wrote. His letter is being billed as a ``reflection'' on where the church stands following last week's General Convention of the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism. Episcopalians brought Anglican differences to a crisis point in 2003 by elevating V. Gene Robinson, who has a male partner, to be bishop of New Hampshire. Rejecting demands from conservatives in Africa and at home that they elect no more gay bishops, Episcopalians voted instead to call for ``restraint.'' And in a communion where women bishops are the exception, Episcopalians ruffled some Anglicans by electing Katharine Jefferts Schori as their presiding bishop. Williams said the same model could work within national churches, including the Episcopal Church where some parishes are in open revolt against their liberal leaders. ``Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible,'' Williams wrote. ``The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with,'' Williams added, ``is because it has tried to find a way of being a church that is neither tightly centralized nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies _ a church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry.'' ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Mass. Court Told State Cannot Bar Rhode Island Lesbians From Marrying
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 26, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Boston, Massachusetts) A Boston court was told Monday that a law used to bar a same-sex couple from Rhode Island from marrying should not have applied. At issue is a 1913 Massachusetts law that says marriage licenses cannot be given to out-of-state couples if their marriages would not be legal in their home states. The law was enacted when most states did not recognize interracial marriage. After the US Supreme Court ruled that laws barring interracial couples from marrying was illegal the Massachusetts statute fell into disuse. After same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) used the old law to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to couples from outside the state. Same-sex couples from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York went to court to fight the use of the old law. A lower court agreed with the state's interpretation of the law and with the help of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group which won marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. In March the high court upheld the law in the cases involving couples from Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine, noting that each of those states has laws barring same-sex marriage. But the court questioned whether the law could apply to New York and Rhode Island which have no specific laws barring gay marriage. It ordered those sections of the case back to the lower court. Today, GLAD argued that Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, of Providence, should be allowed to marry. "Rhode Island has implicitly decided not to stand in the way of its citizens who want to marry here," GLAD attorney Michele Granda argued. Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks argued that Rhode Island statutes use gender-specific terms - including both "bride" and "groom" - making it clear, he said, that their intention is to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly said he would rule on the Rhode Island case within the next six weeks. He has not set a date to hear arguments in the New York case. Whatever the outcome the decisions are expected to be appealed and will likely wind up again before the Supreme Judicial Court. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts House and Senate will meet in a special session on July 12 to consider a so-called citizens' initiative petition that would ban same-sex marriages in the state. The measure, which already is being challenged in court, requires only 50 votes to move on to a second convention in 2007. If successful, the question would appear on the 2008 general election ballot. Last month marked the second anniversary of the implementation of a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that declared it was illegal to prevent gays from marrying. In the past two years some 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in the state. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Gay marriage arguments take center stage in GA
SHANNON McCAFFREY Associated Press ATLANTA - When lawyers appear before Georgia's top court on Tuesday to argue the merits of the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage they're likely to have very little to say about one key issue: gay marriage. The case, which has ignited a political firestorm in Georgia, hinges on whether the state violated a single-subject rule for ballot measures. "This is an important constitutional issue," Jack Senterfitt, a lawyer with the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund in Atlanta, said Monday. "But this is not a case where the court is being asked to issue a ruling on the merits of whether same sex couples should be able to marry." At issue is whether a ballot measure, which 76 percent of voters approved in 2004, lumped together same-sex marriages and civil unions in violation of the state's long-standing single-subject rule. In May, Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell said that it did and declared the ban unconstitutional. The state immediately appealed, requesting an expedited review of the case despite the fact that the state still has another law on the books making same-sex marriage illegal in Georgia. Opponents of the ban urged the Georgia Supreme Court to uphold Russell's ruling. In a friend of the court brief, 55 law professors in Georgia said the ballot measure "posed a multiple choice question, but only allowed voters to respond 'all of the above' or 'none of the above.'" The state is arguing that Russell's ruling is flawed and should be overturned. In his brief for the state, Attorney General Thurbert Baker said the measure did not violate the subject rule because banning both has the "common purpose of prohibiting same sex marriages" in Georgia. The amendment states that "no union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by the state as entitled to the benefits of marriage." The case has drawn interest from afar. Two conservative groups - Arizona-based United Families International and the Virginia-based Liberty Counsel - have filed legal briefs supporting the state. In some ways, what the court rules will be less important than when it does so. Gov. Sonny Perdue has pledged to call a special session of the state Legislature if the court does not rule by Aug. 7, in order to get a new measure on the ballot for the November election. Having a gay marriage ban on the ballot would likely provide Perdue, who is up for re-election, and his fellow Republicans with a boost. The issue has been shown to energize conservative voters. The Georgia Supreme Court will webcast the 10 a.m. oral arguments live at: http://www.gasupreme.us/What do you think?
CA Couple celebrates golden anniversary as grand marshals for Pride Parade
Carlye Malchuk Canadian Press Monday, June 26, 2006 TORONTO (CP) - More than 50 years after they were introduced through a mutual friend, a Toronto-area gay couple took part in the city's annual Pride Parade on Sunday as grand marshals. "It's a great honour," said Les Sheare, who has been with his partner Robert Berry since they met on March 17, 1956. "I'll have my 15 minutes of fame and next week nobody will remember me," he quipped. Parade organizer Trisha Kaplan-Freed said having Berry and Sheare as grand marshals - along with another couple who have been together for 50 years, Donald Middleton and Clayton Wilson - demonstrates Pride Week's theme of being fearless. "It goes back to what our lives were like 50 years ago," she said. "Being a couple back then - a queer couple and being out - was so different than it is now." When they began dating, Sheare and Berry had to worry about persecution, losing their jobs or facing harassment if people knew they were gay. "We've been through all the name calling, the harassment, the threats, but things have changed drastically since the time we came out," Berry said. The couple, who married in 2003, said they are stunned by the changes to society in the past few decades. "I can't believe that I'm part of it in this day and age and that I'm still here to see it," Sheare said. "I just feel so comfortable now, being myself and being gay." Berry said it's wonderful that he and Sheare can walk down the street holding hands - although they don't do it often. "We're a little old-fashioned that way," he said. Sheare said being openly gay was never a problem because he has always been "out and flamboyant and having fun." The couple said they don't see themselves as role models, but they do hope a younger generation of gay men will "find themselves" earlier. "Life is not enjoyable unless you are yourself," Sheare said. What do you think?
Spain sees first gay divorce - report
Madrid - A year after legalising gay marriages, Spain is now seeing its first gay divorce, complete with a custody fight over the couple's dogs, a newspaper reported on Monday.The claimant is asking for the right to stay in the marital home and to take custody of their pets. The suit added that his ex-partner would be granted visiting rights to see the animals, a report on the website of newspaper El Mundo said.Council officials said divorce proceedings were private and would only confirm that the unnamed men were married in a Madrid suburb last October, three months after Spain became the fourth country to legalise same-sex marriages.The claimant said in a petition that he had dedicated his life to the relationship, giving up a modelling career and abandoning his dog hairdressing business to follow his partner who had found work in France.Some 1 300 gay weddings have now taken place in Spain.The marriage legislation gives same-sex unions the same status as heterosexual ones, including inheritance rights and adoption, a plan that drew hundreds of thousands of Spaniards into streets to march both in favour and against.Meanwhile a steep rise in divorces has increased yet further since a new divorce law was introduced last year. In 2005, 150 000 marriages were dissolved, compared to 83 000 in 1995. What do you think?
Conference addresses gay issues in Africa
Nairobi - "We are here in Africa. We live in the mainstream, we pay taxes like everybody else, we relate with people in the mainstream. We are a naturally occurring phenomenon in the universe," said activist Donna Smith of gay people in Africa.The representative of the Forum for the Empowerment of Women - a black, lesbian organisation based in Johannesburg - was speaking at the second Africa Conference on Sexual Health and Rights that took place in Nairobi last week.About 400 delegates gathered for the meeting which sought, in part, to improve policies and programmes on sexuality in Africa. The first such meeting was held in Johannesburg in 2004.A session on gay sexuality proved a drawcard. Many countries in Africa still outlaw homosexuality, including Kenya, where it is punishable by jail terms of up to 14 years. In addition to repressive legislation, gays face stigmatisation and discrimination. At worst, discrimination ends in violence. Fikile Vilakazi, of the Coalition of African Lesbians, cited the example of Zoliswa Nkonyana, a 19-year-old lesbian who was killed by a mob in Cape Town earlier this year because of her sexual orientation.Vilakazi said that matters were aggravated by officials' attitudes towards gays. "A number of rape and assault cases have been reported to police stations. When one reports, the police respond by asking why one is a lesbian."The session on gay sexuality also saw the launch of a book titled Tommy Boys, Lesbian Men and Ancestral Wives: Female Same Sex Practices in Africa, an account of lesbian sexuality in Eastern and Southern Africa.This publication was co-authored by activists from six countries: South Africa, Namibia, Swaziland, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. - Sapa-IPS What do you think?
Labor leaders support marriage equality
Written by Empire State Pride Agenda Monday, 26 June 2006 New York, June 26, 2006—Today, Empire State Pride Agenda released a list of twenty leaders of labor unions and federations across New York State who are supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples. On the list are well-known figures like Dennis Rivera, Randi Weingarten and Bruce Raynor. This is the first time these labor leaders have allowed their support for marriage equality to be made public Among the unions on the list are: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1199; United Federation of Teachers (UFT); and, a number of affiliates and locals of UNITE HERE, United Auto Workers (UAW), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and Communications Workers of America (CWA). Three important upstate labor federations are also on the list: Capital District Area Labor Federation; Rochester & Genesee Valley Labor Federation; and, Central New York Area Labor Federation. (Federations are multi-union organizations within specific geographic regions of the state.) Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization said about the announcements, “As someone who worked for nearly a decade in the labor movement, I know that organized labor is one of most effective vehicles in the country for advancing economic and social justice. I am pleased that labor is continuing that great tradition and is leading the way in New York on marriage equality.”“While members of SEIU 1199 have a variety of views about marriage, according to their personal or religious beliefs, it is a fundamental, uniting principle of our organization that all people are entitled to equal rights. We therefore support the right of same-sex couples to access the full and equal rights, responsibilities and economic benefits of civil marriage and oppose laws and constitutional amendments that deny that right.”Dennis Rivera, President, 1199 SEIU, United Healthcare Workers East“All New Yorkers who want to marry should be allowed to do so. Period.”Randi Weingarten, President of United Federation of Teachers (UFT)While the national organizations of 1199 and UFT have been on the record supporting marriage equality since their 2004 conventions, this is the first time Dennis Rivera, President of SEIU 1199, and Randi Weingarten, President of UFT, have publicly stated the support of their unions for marriage equality as it relates to New York. Even though UNITE HERE has not taken a position nationally on marriage equality for same-sex couples, its President Bruce Raynor has given his personal support for the issue. A number of UNITE HERE’s New York affilitiates have come out in support of marriage equality, however, and their local leaders are on today’s list. “I support the Marriage Equality campaign as a union leader because I have dedicated my entire working life to fighting against injustice and discrimination in any and all forms. I am proud to stand with my brothers and sisters at Empire State Pride Agenda in support of this important struggle.”Bruce Raynor, President of UNITE HERE (for identification only)When informed about labor’s support for marriage equality in New York, NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn said, “The pundits often divide Americans into distinct and separate groups, but the reality is, we are far more integrated and diverse than that. Union families are not so different from LGBT New Yorkers -- indeed, many union members are gay or lesbian. When it comes to justice -- whether it be safe working conditions, racial equality, immigration reform, or marriage rights -- we truly are, as the labor movement so often says, stronger together.” The number of workers in New York State represented by these unions and federations is about 725,000. The three upstate labor federations represent 33 counties and 320,000 of the 725,000 figure. Most of the rest are in NYC. The three federations cover geographic regions of the state that include the cities of Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton and Ithaca. The Executive Boards of all three cast unanimous votes supporting resolutions for marriage equality. The Executive Board of Capital District Area Labor Federation passed its resolution on May 8, the Executive Board of the Rochester & Genesee Valley Labor Federation on May 24 and the Executive Board of Central New York Area Labor Federation on June 15. The resolutions passed by the federations express strong support for the “right of same-sex couples to access all the rights, responsibilities and legal commitment of civil marriage.” The resolutions also propose that the New York State AFL-CIO make marriage for same-sex couples a “legislative goal to ensure that all members enjoy equal rights and benefits” and “determine where New York State elected officials stand on this issue prior to the 2006 elections.” (Go to www.prideagenda.org to view a PDF of the resolution passed by the three federations.)Statements from the twenty labor leaders in support of marriage equality can be viewed on the Pride Agenda’s website at www.prideagenda.org/freedom_to_marry/freedom.htm as part of its “New Yorkers for the Freedom to Marry” initiative. Launched in February, this special initiative brings together local and state leaders from many different backgrounds to speak out in support of marriage for same-sex couples. On Valentine’s Day, over seventy clergy from across the state made their support known for marriage equality through “New Yorkers for the Freedom to Marry” and more have joined since then. In March, forty-four elected officials, including New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, became part of the initiative. “LGBT union members have spent decades organizing within their unions on issues like equal rights and benefits,” said Van Capelle. “The announcements we’ve been able to make today on marriage equality would not have been possible without their hard work over the years and the commitment by leadership to do the right thing.” The Pride Agenda anticipates making additional announcements about labor support for marriage equality throughout the summer.Following is the list of labor unions, federations and individuals released today by the Pride Agenda:Leaders of Labor Federations and Unions Voicing Support for Marriage EqualityTo read their statements, go to www.prideagenda.org/freedom_to_marry/freedom.htm.∑ James V. Bertalone, President, Rochester & Genesee Valley Area Labor Federation & President, Local 215, American Postal Workers Union∑ Marshall Blake, President, Central New York Area Labor Federation & Executive VP Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1199 Upstate∑ Barbara Bowen, President, Professional Staff Congress (PSC), American Federation of Teachers (AFT)∑ Arthur Cheliotes, President, Local 1180, Communication Workers of America (CWA) ∑ May Y. Chen, International Vice President & Secretary-Treasurer, New York Metropolitan Area Joint Board, UNITE HEREJoyce Degenhardt, Regional Coordinator, Region 1, New York State Public Employee Federation (SEIU & AFT)∑ ∑ Joe Fox, President, Capital District Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; and Vice President, New York State Public Employee Federation (SEIU & AFT)∑ ∑ Barbie Gatton, President, Committee of Interns & Residents*, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)*individual endorsement, title provided for identification only∑ ∑ John Gillis, International Vice President & General Manager, New York Joint Board, UNITE HERE∑ ∑ William F. Henning, Jr., Second Vice President, Local 1180, Communication Workers of America (CWA) ∑ ∑ Fred Kaplan, President, Retail Employees Union Local 340, UNITE HERE∑ ∑ Wilfredo Larancuent, International Vice President & Manager, Laundry, Drycleaning and Allied Workers Joint Board, UNITE HERE∑ ∑ Bruce Raynor, President, UNITE HERE**individual endorsement, title provided for identification only∑ ∑ Dennis Rivera, President, 1199 United Healthcare Workers East, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)∑ ∑ Maida Rosenstein, President, Technical, Office and Professional Local 2110, United Auto Workers (UAW)∑ ∑ Chris Shelton, Vice President, District One, Communication Workers of America (CWA) ∑ ∑ Lynn Taylor, President, Local 1930, District Council 37, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)∑ ∑ United Auto Workers (UAW) Region 9A New York Metro Community Action Program (CAP) Council∑ ∑ ∑ Ellen N. Wallace, President, National Organization of Legal Services Workers, Local 2320, United Auto Workers (UAW)∑ Randi Weingarten, President, United Federation of Teachers (UFT), American Federation of Teachers (AFT) What do you think?
Monday, June 26, 2006
Big Four Celebrate Pride
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 25, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (New York City) North America's four largest LGBT communities celebrated gay pride on Sunday with parades focused on same-sex marriage. In New York a steady downpour failed to dampen spirits or the resolve to attain equal marriage rights. The issue of gay marriage was argued last month before the state's highest court and a ruling could come at any time. Just before the parade began Empire State Pride Agenda the largest LGBT civil rights group in New York announced its endorsement of Eliot Spitzer for Governor. "He supports marriage equality for our families; he understands that there is no place in New York State for discrimination against transgender people; he believes that all youth, including LGBT youth, should be safe from bias harassment in our schools; and he believes the state should provide support to programs that address the long-standing health and human services needs of our community," said Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle. The issue of growing incidents of violence against gays was also highlighted in the parade. Kevin Aviance drew wild cheers from the crowds along Fifth Avenue. The singer, appearing in drag, had his mouth unwired for the parade. Earlier his month his jaw was broken in a homophobic attack in the East Village. The wires will be reattached tomorrow. Four young men have been charged with hate crimes in connection with the beating. A cool breeze blew over Market Street as Dykes On Bikes led off San Francisco's Pride parade. Tens of thousands lined the street from the Embarcadero to Civic Center to watch as drag queens, leather men and muscle boys moved to the beat of music blaring from sound trucks. Same-sex marriage is likely to reach the California Supreme Court next year. Marchers from Bay Area GSAs carried signs reading "If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one." But for many in the parade it was bittersweet - celebrating gay liberation while at the same time remembering loved ones and friends who have died of AIDS. This year is the 25th anniversary of the AIDS epidemic. In Toronto organizers of Canada's biggest pride parade estimated that about 1.2 million people lined Yonge Street for the march. The city's gay community sees the parade as a "shot across the bow" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government which will hold a vote this fall on reopening the debate on gay marriage. The Conservatives hope to get enough votes to introduce a bill repealing same-sex marriage in Canada. Polls show the public does not want the issue revisited and the opposition parties are opposed to amending the law. Toronto's city clerk's office was busy all weekend processing marriage licenses for gay couples - mostly from the US. With no waiting time couples picked up their licenses and immediately married. Tens of thousands of people lined up to watch Chicago's Gay Pride Parade. The highlight was local teams who will compete in this summer's Gay Games. Chicago is the host city for the games this year. Marchers also denounced an attempt by a conservative group to force a referendum on gay marriage. The vote would only call on lawmakers to start the ball rolling on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but opponents say they intend to fight it. Crowds were estimated at about a half million people as the parade headed north on Halsted to Broadway, south on Broadway to Diversey, and east on Diversey to Canon Drive. Chicago's pride parade is the second largest parade in the city behind the Bud Billiken parade. At least a dozen other cities also celebrated pride on Sunday. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
GOP Gov. Appoints Gay Maryland Judge
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 25, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Baltimore, Maryland) Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has appointed Christopher Panos to be a judge on the Baltimore District Court. Panos, 47, is currently a special master in the city Circuit Court family division. He and domestic partner Dennis Cashen, are raising a young daughter. The move is Ehrlich's latest attempt to position himself as a centrist candidate as he seeks re-election. Last week he fired Robert J. Smith, his appointee to the Washington Metro transit authority board, after Smith refused to back down from homophobic remarks he made on a cable TV show. Appearing on a Montgomery County cable access show, Smith called gays "persons of sexual deviancy". Both the firing of Smith and the appointment of Panos has caused some gay activists and a number of conservatives in Ehrlich's Republican Party to accuse him of playing self-serving politics in both decisions. Earlier this year the governor told a Baltimore radio station that he would appoint only judges who agreed with him on social and political issues. Conservatives in the GOP said Ehrlich's newfound "liberalism" could drive them from supporting him. Many gays in the state remember his veto last year of a bill that would have given unmarried couples that registered as life partners the same rights as married couples in dealing with health care issues saying it "could lead to the erosion of the sanctity of traditional marriage as already codified in Maryland law." This year he supported a watered down version of the legislation. When a Baltimore judge ruled that Maryland's law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional Ehrlich did a flip flop on whether a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage "was necessary. At first said he would not support an amendment and then decided he would. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
From Athens To Zagreb Europe Celebrates Gay Pride
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 25, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Paris) They marched, danced and rode in a number of cities across Europe on Saturday celebrating victories already won in some places and calling for civil rights in others. One of the biggest parades was in Paris were a sea of rainbow-colored flags weaved its way from southern Paris toward Place de la Bastille. Among the marchers was the city's openly gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe and other members of the Socialist Party. Last week the leading candidate for the party's presidential nomination announced her support for same-sex marriage in France. "Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is needed in the name of equality, visibility and respect," Segolene Royal told the LGBT publication Tetu. The declaration sets her apart from President Jacques Chirac's ruling conservative UMP party which opposes both gay marriage and adoption and only begrudgingly agreed several years ago to grant limited rights to gay and lesbian couples. This is the last Pride Parade in the French capital before the 2007 election and the Socialists are hoping the LGBT vote sweeps the party into power. In Dublin about 5,000 people celebrated Pride in the Irish capital. Marriage was the major theme of this year's event. The Irish government already is committed to enacting legislation allowing civil partnerships but not marriage for gay and lesbian couples. In Lisbon about 400 people marched for equality and the right to marry. About a thousand people attended a Pride celebration in Athens. Outside the Greek Parliament they called for civil marriage. Heavily influenced by the conservative Orthodox Church the government has been slow to recognize same-sex relationships. Close to 1,500 people marched through central Budapest to celebrate Gay Pride Day. Like Greece, Hungary has been slow to enact civil rights laws for its LGBT community. Marchers carried rainbow-colored flags and banners promoting tolerance. Members of a far-right party held a counter rally but police reported no incidents. In Zagreg there were almost as many police as gay marchers. About 200 members of the LGBT community marched through central Zagreb. The heavy police presence was the result of threats from extremist groups but no problems were reported. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Sox GM May Refuse League Ordered 'Gay Sensitivity' Program
by The Associated Press June 24, 2006 - 2:00 pm ET (Chicago, Illinois Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen reacted angrily during Friday night's post-game news conference when asked about a report on ESPNdeportes.com that quoted him as saying he would not undergo the sensitivity training that commissioner Bud Selig ordered. Guillen was fined Thursday and ordered by Selig to undergo training after an obscenity-laden tirade against Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti in which the manager used a derogatory term that describes someone's sexual orientation. When asked about the report after the game, the manager responded with a lengthy diatribe in which he said he first needs to take English classes ``to understand what they're talking about'' and threatened to ``start being nasty with the media'' if they continued to ask questions about it. ``It's a really uncomfortable situation for me,'' Guillen said after the White Sox beat Houston 7-4. ``I don't need this job. It's hard every day. ... If someone tries to play games, I'm sorry, but you've got the wrong guy.'' Guillen got up and walked out of the interview room. A few minutes later, he said through a team spokesman he will undergo the training. Guillen has said he did not mean to offend gays and has apologized for using the word. But he stands by his criticism of Mariotti, who was not at U.S. Cellular Field when Guillen chastised him. Mariotti had criticized Guillen's handling of pitcher Sean Tracey. The rookie could be seen distraught in the dugout last week in Texas after Guillen became angry when the White Sox didn't retaliate for catcher A.J. Pierzynski twice being hit with pitches. Tracey was sent to the minors. Guillen was also angry with Mariotti for calling for the Cubs to fire manager Dusty Baker and replace him with TV broadcaster Bob Brenly. Guillen was back in the dugout Friday after serving a one-game suspension, a punishment for reliever David Riske hitting St. Louis' Chris Duncan with a pitch Tuesday night after two White Sox were plunked. Riske is appealing a three-game suspension. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, citing a Cardinals source, said the team became convinced during Wednesday's game that a camera in center field was tipping pitches to the White Sox _ a notion that Guillen laughed off. The White Sox won the first two games 20-6 and 13-5, then managed just one hit but beat the Cardinals 1-0 on Jim Thome's home run Thursday. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Prince Disowned For Being Gay
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 24, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (New Delhi) The eldest son and heir of one of India's princely families has been disowned after coming out publicly. Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil of Rajpipla quickly became the public face of the gay rights movement in Gujarat and is the patron of the region's biggest HIV/AIDS organization. The prince learned that he had been stripped of his title, inheritance, and all rights in the newspaper. His family, one of the richest in India, this week placed an official announcement in local papers accusing him of disobedience and of bringing dishonor to the royal family. The announcement said that Prince Manvendra was involved in activities that are "unsuitable in society" and said that the family was severing all ties with him. In an interview with The Times of India the prince said that he was not altogether surprised. He told the paper that he had come out to his family in 2002. "However, they may not have expected that I would go public with the issue." "I did so by giving an interview that was carried prominently. I also said gay relationships were not uncommon in royal families. This, along with my recent interviews regarding a documentary film on gay relationships, seems to have prompted the action," he told The Times of India. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Law Profs Support Challenge To Georgia Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 23, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Atlanta, Georgia) Some of Georgia's greatest legal minds have come out in support of a challenge to the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Fifty-five law school professors from across the state are urging the Supreme Court of Georgia to uphold a lower court ruling that overturned the ban. The high court will hear arguments next Tuesday in the state's appeal of the ruling. In May, Superior Court Judge Constance Russell, of Fulton County, tossed out the constitutional amendment, which 76 percent of voters had approved in 2004. Russell did not rule on issues related to gay marriage, but held instead that the measure violated the single-subject rule mandated by the state Constitution by asking voters to consider both same-sex marriage and civil unions. "The importance of posing clear, single-subject questions [to voters] has been known for almost as long as democracy itself," the professors from Emory University, the University of Georgia and three other law schools said in a friend of the court brief submitted to the Supreme Court this week. Among those signing on the brief were professors from the University of Georgia, Emory, Georgia State University College of Law, Mercer University Law School and John Marshall Law School. In filing the appeal earlier this month state lawyers argued that the ballot measure does not violate the single issue law. "To constitute a plurality of subject matter, an Act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any logical connection with or relation to each other." the state's brief said. "The parts of the amendment are germane to one another and their common purpose of prohibiting same sex marriages in Georgia." Even if the amendment is voided by the Supreme Court it would not mean same-sex couples could marry in Georgia. The state has a so-called Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996. Gov. Sonny Perdue has given the court until Aug. 7 to rule. If it does not rule by then, or upholds Russell's decision, he has vowed to call a special session of the state Legislature to get the issue back on the ballot for the November election. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
7000 Gay Couples Say 'I Do' In UK
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 23, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (London) Nearly 7,000 same-sex couples have entered into civil partnerships in Britain in the four months since they became legal. The majority of the couples were married in England and Wales where 6,516 pairs tied the knot. In Scotland, some 350 couples have exchanged vows. Unlike most other countries which allow same-sex couples to solemnify their relationships most of the British couples were male - by a margin of almost two-to-one figures released Friday show. In England and Wales 4,311 couples were male and 2,205 female. Not surprisingly there was a rush to have civil unions in December, right after the law went into effect with 1,901 partnerships formed in England and Wales. Numbers tailed off slightly in the new year. The most popular location to have a civil partnership was in London, followed closely by the largely gay area of Brighton and Hove. Despite the lower numbers in Scotland, one-in-five of all couples tying the knot in Edinburgh were same-sex couples. The civil partnership law went into effect December 20 in Scotland and the following day in England and Wales. It applies only to same-sex couples and offers all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage but without the name. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Hearing set on R.I. gay couple's lawsuit
Friday, June 23, 2006 By DAN RING dring@repub.comBOSTON - A Suffolk Superior Court judge - the same judge who previously ruled against gay marriage - on Monday will weigh whether same-sex couples from Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts. Monday's scheduled hearing in Boston stems from a March 30 decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court on a lawsuit by out-of-state gay couples who sought the right to wed in Massachusetts. The court ruled that Gov. W. Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly could use a 1913 state law to ban gay couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont from marrying in Massachusetts because gay marriage is illegal in those states. But the high court said it was unclear whether gay marriage was banned in Rhode Island and New York. The court said the Superior Court needed to rule on that. The case will be heard by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly, who in 2002 ruled against a lawsuit filed by seven same-sex couples who wanted the right to marry in Massachusetts. The SJC in 2003 disagreed with Connolly and legalized gay marriage. Under the 1913 law, out-of-state couples can't marry in Massachusetts if their union would be banned in their home state. In a brief filed with Connolly, Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said the court should prohibit Mary E. Norton, 46, and Wendy L. Becker, 45, of Providence from obtaining a marriage license in Massachusetts. Becker, a professor at Rhode Island College in Providence, and Norton, a director of research at Brown University in Providence, were denied a marriage license in Attleboro in May 2004. Sacks wrote that Rhode Island's laws require a "female party" and a "male party" to obtain a marriage license. Rhode Island law also states that "the bride and groom" should be stipulated on the license. "These statutes clearly indicate the Rhode Island General Assembly's intent that marriage be between a man and a woman," Sacks wrote. In a brief with Connolly, Michele E. Granda, lead lawyer on the case for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston, said Rhode Island law doesn't specifically ban gay marriage under the legal standards set by four of the Supreme Judicial Court's seven justices. The four justices require at a minimum evidence that gay marriage is "prohibited" by express pronouncement in Rhode Island law, Granda wrote. The attorney general has not "identified any Rhode Island statute, constitutional provision or controlling appellate decision that 'expressly forbids' the marriage of same-sex couples in Rhode Island." Sacks and lawyers for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are awaiting a decision by the New York Court of Appeals on whether gay marriage will be allowed in that state. What do you think?
Florida church exposes foes of same-sex marriage
A gay-friendly church in Jacksonville, Fla., is turning heads and sparking debate by publishing on its Web site a list of Floridians who signed a petition voicing opposition to same-sex marriage, reports News4Jax.com. The Church Christ of Peace has made public not only the names but also the addresses of 400,000 foes of marriage equality. Opponents of same-sex marriage in the state need 100,000 more signatures to qualify the issue for the 2008 ballot. Floridians would then vote on whether to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, although it’s already illegal in the state. The same-sex marriage debate, once a relatively quiet matter in Jacksonville, has been stirred up because of the Church Christ of Peace’s actions. “I think it’s a right of privacy,” Floridian Beverly Hughes told News4Jax.com. “If you want it on [the Web site], you should put it on, not somebody else.” The Reverend Gary Debusk of the Christ Church of Peace thinks the outing of marriage equality foes will have a positive outcome by creating dialogue on both sides, he told News4Jax.com. A similar situation happened in Massachusetts last year when a pro-gay group called Know Thy Neighbor published the names of people trying to overturn that state’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage. (The Advocate) What do you think?
Poll: NJ supports civil unions, opposes ban on gay marriage
-------------------- By GEOFF MULVIHILL Associated Press Writer June 23, 2006, 4:58 PM EDT Nearly two-thirds of New Jersey residents support allowing civil unions for same-sex couples, while half think gay marriage should be legal in the state, according to a poll released Friday. The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll finds the state far more supportive of gay unions than the nation as a whole _ and more than New Jersey was in a poll three years ago. The latest poll comes as the state Supreme Court considers a case in which seven gay couples sued for the right to marry. Many legal scholars and political insiders expect the court will find that same-sex couples do have a constitutional right to marry in the state. If that happens, opponents of gay marriage vow a quick push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they opposed such an amendment, while 40 percent supported it. The question, though, did not specify whether it was a state or federal constitutional amendment in question. The poll found that while respondents clearly supported expanding rights for gay couples, they were not decisive about whether marriage was the answer. Half of the respondents were asked about same-sex marriage first; the other half were asked first about civil unions. Those asked first about same-sex marriage supported it by a 53 to 40 margin, but those asked about civil unions first were split, with 48 percent in favor of allowing gay marriage and 47 percent opposing it. Regardless of the question order, about 65 percent of respondents supported civil unions, while 30 percent opposed them. The poll, conducted from June 14-19, surveyed 699 randomly selected registered voters and had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Len Deo, president of the conservative New Jersey Family Policy Council, said the poll results may have shown less support for same-sex unions had the questions been asked differently. He said, for instance, that if respondents had been told that New Jersey already allows same-sex couples to register as domestic partners, more may have opposed going further than that with marriage or civil unions. "When people understand all the facts, then you tend to see a stronger margin in favor of marriage as the union of a man and a woman," he said. Steven Goldstein, chair of the gay-rights group Garden State Equality said the Rugters-Eagleton poll showed the same attitudes _ though not as strongly _ as a poll his organization commissioned in February. "Poll after poll after poll in New Jersey, no matter who conducts them or who commissions them, all say the same thing: New Jersey wants gay couples to have the freedom to marry," Goldstein said in a written statement. Copyright (c) 2006, The Associated Press What do you think?
Friday, June 23, 2006
Colorado Catholics Instructed To Support Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 23, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Denver, Colorado) Roman Catholic churches throughout Colorado will be used to collect signatures for two ballot measures that will restrict the rights of same-sex couples. One is an amendment to the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, the other would block benefits to same-sex couples. There are about 370,000 Catholics in the state. The ballot measures each need about 68,000 signatures by Aug. 7 to qualify for a statewide vote. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput said that petitions on the two gay issues and a third on abortion are to be made available in every parish in the state. "If these important measures do not get on the ballot in November, we will have failed to add to our state laws a strong message of respect for our families and new life," Chaput wrote in the Denver Catholic Register. Under Chaput's instruction bishops in the state will read pastoral letters or write columns in area Catholic papers in support of the proposed amendments. "If same-sex marriage is legalized here, churches that refuse to perform these "weddings" could lose their tax-exempt status," Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan wrote in his diocesan paper, The Colorado Catholic Herald. "Any religious teaching which condemns homosexual acts (would be) considered hate speech and is punishable by imprisonment. This reduces the Christian view of marriage and sexuality to bigotry." Neither statement is correct according to organizations fighting the amendments. While it is likely the group behind the marriage amendment will be successful in having gay marriage banned the move to curb benefits may fail. Last week the Colorado Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the measure. LGBT civil rights group Coloradans for Fairness and Equality told the justices that referendum also deals with more than one subject. Colorado law permits only one issue to be placed on any one referendum question. The high court rejected the argument and supporters of the amendment have begun collecting signatures to get the referendum placed before voters. The measure is in response to a third referendum that will go to voters which would allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners. That proposal was approved by the legislature and does not need the collection of signatures to go on the ballot. Polls in the state have indicated that most voters would approve banning same-sex marriage in the constitution but are opposed to including partner benefits. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Focus on the Family accused of manipulating research
June 23, 2006 The right-wing group Focus on the Family is being accused of manipulating research on gays and lesbians in an effort to advance its homophobic agenda. It all began when the Colorado Springs, Colo.–based group released a statement on its Web site refuting the results of a study on lesbian teens conducted by Elizabeth Saewyc of the University of British Columbia. Saewyc’s study found that lesbian teens were more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers, but Focus on the Family took an opportunity to use the findings to come up with a different conclusion than what Saewyc found. “Regrettably, [lesbian teens] think they have to embrace homosexuality because pro-gay advocates told them that they were born gay,” claimed Focus on the Family spokeswoman Melissa Fryrear on the group’s site. On Monday, Saewyc responded to Focus on the Family’s claims by telling the Canadian Press, “The research has been hijacked for somebody’s political purposes or ideological purposes, and that’s worrisome.” The conservative group defended itself in the Canadian Press article by bringing up a 2001 study on sexual orientation conducted by Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer. Spitzer said Focus on the Family was once again distorting the facts. “Although a third of the subjects in my study reported having had serious thoughts of suicide related to their homosexuality, not one of them blamed the gay rights movement’s advocating a ‘born gay’ theory of homosexuality as the cause of their suicidal thinking,” Spitzer said. “Focus on the Family should shut down its fib factory and start focusing on the needs of real families,” said Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, a pro-gay advocacy group. “This group mocks science and can’t tell a centrifuge from a centerfold or a test tube from a boob tube. All they understand is the science of spin, which got them into a lot of trouble.” (The Advocate) What do you think?
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Gay marriage ban passes PA Senate
By MARC LEVY, Associated Press Writer , The Associated Press The state Senate on Wednesday approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would echo state law in seeking to outlaw gay marriage in Pennsylvania, and narrowly rejected efforts by conservatives to include a companion ban on civil unions. The push for the legislation is a last-ditch effort by supporters to keep alive the possibility for a statewide referendum as early as 2007 on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. With differences on the issue between the House and Senate, the multiyear process that is required to amend the state constitution could be set back two years if the chambers do not agree before lawmakers take a vacation from Harrisburg in July and August. The bill passed, 38-12, but was a bitter pill for conservatives who had also sought a ban on civil unions, which they see as tantamount to gay marriage. An effort to add a ban on the "functional equivalent" of marriage to the legislation divided the Republican majority and failed, 23-27. Sen. Jane Orie, R-Allegheny, said that a vote against wider legislation to ban gay marriage as well as civil unions was "a vote against marriage in Pennsylvania." She and other Republicans warned that, without a constitutional amendment, a state judge could act on a legal challenge to Pennsylvania law and effectively legalize gay marriage or civil unions between gays. The House on June 6 approved a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman and to prohibit civil unions between gays by banning "a legal union identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals." Liberal opponents characterized a ban as the kind of racial discrimination that courts have struck down in previous decades. Other opponents questioned the need for a constitutional amendment to guard against a hypothetical challenge to a 1996 state law that already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. "This measure is disheartening, it is divisive, and it is diversionary to say the least," said Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Allegheny. "The Pennsylvania Constitution should not be tarnished with this measure." In addition, opponents contended that civil unions have nothing to do with marriage, and said a ban would simply take away rights and benefits from gays and many other classes of people who live together, but are not married. "If we're concerned about the sanctity of marriage, I don't know how it hurts your marriage ... if some gay couple in Philadelphia is living together," said Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, D-Philadelphia. "Mind your own business, stay out of the bedroom." Gay marriage has re-emerged as a major election-year issue, as six states are scheduled for a referendum on a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Twenty states have adopted constitutional definitions outlawing gay marriage, with more than half extending the ban to civil unions. Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution requires the approval by the House and Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly and then the approval of voters in a statewide referendum. Constitutionally, any such legislation must be approved by both chambers three months before the Nov. 7 general election if the process is to continue into the 2007-08 session of the General Assembly. That would make Aug. 7 the deadline for the House and Senate to agree on an identical legislation, but the chambers are scheduled to leave Harrisburg at the end of next week to take a summer vacation that lasts into September. What do you think?
Episcopal Church votes to curb gay bishops
Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:15 PM ET By Jim Leckrone COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - The U.S. Episcopal Church, trying to appease an angry and alienated worldwide Anglican community, reversed itself on Wednesday and agreed to try to avoid the consecration of more openly gay bishops. The action came 24 hours after one of two legislative bodies at the 2.3 million member U.S. church's convention had rejected a similar idea. The non-binding resolution adopted at the convention calls on those in authority "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate (for bishop) whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." Debate during the weeklong convention made it clear that the "manner of life" caution applied to openly homosexual candidates for the episcopate. The church has been in turmoil since its consecration three years ago of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first bishop known to be in an openly gay relationship in more than 450 years of Anglican history. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, said it was not clear how fully the U.S. church's actions responded to concerns raised by the world church's spiritual leadership. "The wider Communion will therefore need to reflect carefully on the significance of what has been decided before we respond more fully," he said. The resolution's "exercise caution" wording falls short of a recommendation from the Windsor Report, a paper issued at the behest of Williams, which suggested a moratorium on more gay bishops. STRONGER WORDING But the advice to avoid consecrations that was finally chosen was stronger than earlier wording proposed by a special commission within the U.S. church that called for exercising "very considerable caution" in elevating gays in open relationships to the episcopate. However, the election of bishops is a local matter within the church and any resolution in whatever form is advisory. The vote came after Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold warned the convention in its closing hours that "unless there is a clear perception on the part of our Anglican brothers and sisters that they have been taken seriously ... there will be no conversion and the bonds of affection which undergird communion will be further strained." Griswold is leaving the church's top post after nearly nine years. His successor, voted in last Sunday at the convention, is Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who will be installed later this year and become the first woman to head any branch in the 77 million-member Anglican community worldwide. "This church, the body of Christ, is not wholly one and not wholly two," she said during the debate. "The resolution which is before you is far from adequate. The language is exceedingly challenging but it is the best we can do at this convention." Jefferts Schori, who backed the Robinson consecration three years ago and favors gay rights generally, said the resolution did not amount to "slamming the door" on the issue. "We need to keep working ... to find the common body in this church," she said. "This is the best we are going to manage at this point in the church's history." What do you think?
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Australians Support Civil Unions
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 20, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Sydney, Australia) A bill at the center of a storm between the Australian Capital Territory and the federal government that would allow civil unions and provide the benefits of marriage has broad support among voters a new poll shows. The Nielsen poll for the Fairfax newspaper group shows that 45 percent of Australian support the legislation while only 34 percent oppose it. The groundbreaking civil union bill was passed by the Australian Capital Territory earlier this month but nullified by the federal government of Prime Minister John Howard. The bill was based on Britain's civil partnerships and offered all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without using the term. The Howard government said it violated a 2004 federal law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Last week an attempt to overturn the government's veto failed by only two votes in the Australian Senate. Following the vote ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the territorial government will likely introduce a new set of gay unions laws. "Discrimination against same-sex relationships persists in this country," Corbell said at the time. The Nielsen poll found that support for same-sex couples was highest among younger people. Those between 18 and 39 gave 56 percent approval to the ACT legislation. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Presbyterians Approve Leeway For Ordaining Gay Clergy
by The Associated Press June 20, 2006 - 6:30 pm ET (Birmingham, Alabama) A Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) national assembly voted Tuesday to create some leeway for gay clergy and lay officers to serve local congregations, despite a denominational ban on partnered gay ministers. A measure approved 298-221 by a Presbyterian national assembly keeps in place a church law that says clergy and lay elders and deacons must limit sexual relations to man-woman marriage. But the new legislation says local congregations and regional presbyteries can exercise some flexibility when choosing clergy and lay officers of local congregations if sexual orientation or other issues arise. The decision concluded a hard-fought struggle lasting years between liberals and conservatives in the 2.3-million-member denomination. Ten conservative caucuses allied to fight any change, and conservatives lost two last-ditch efforts to kill or delay the measure.The Presbyterian establishment, including all seminary presidents and many officials, promoted the flexibility plan, which was devised by a special task force. The idea is to grant modest change to liberals but mollify conservatives by keeping the sexual law on the books. It's unclear whether that will work. "We have been painfully aware that in some ways our greatest challenge was not preparing for this assembly but preparing for what happens after this assembly," the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, chief executive at denominational headquarters, told delegates after the votes. The Rev. Blair Monie of Dallas, who chaired the committee dealing with the issue, said that "this is not an 'anything goes' proposal. In fact, it will make the examination of officers more rigorous." But a series of conservative delegates disputed that. "When the constitution is set aside and something mandatory is reduced to something optional, it destroys the constitution," said Robert Gagnon, a New Testament professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of a book opposing gay relationships. Gagnon said the denomination had reached "a transition point" that broke from Jesus' teaching in favor of man-woman monogamy. But Jesus was cited from the other side. Oregon youth delegate Jamie Moon said she found the assembly debate disheartening. She said she became Presbyterian because "Jesus Christ was love. Jesus Christ was acceptance. He said come to me and be my disciple. "He wants us to love everybody. Raise your hand if you're not a sinner," she told the assembly. What do you think?
Episcopalians Reject Ban On Gay Bishops
by The Associated Press June 20, 2006 - 4:00 pm ET (Columbus, Ohio) Episcopal clergy and lay delegates Tuesday rejected a demand from fellow Anglicans that they temporarily stop electing gay bishops, leaving little chance the proposal could be revived at a national church meeting. Anglican leaders, angered by the 2003 consecration of an openly gay Episcopal bishop, had asked the Episcopalians pass a moratorium _ at least for now _ on homosexuals leading dioceses. But in a complex balloting system, a majority of the Episcopal House of Deputies voted against a measure that would have urged dioceses to refrain from electing homosexuals to lead them. Conservatives said the measure stopped short of a moratorium, but supporters argued it would have at least signaled that the American church understood the concerns of Anglican leaders. Northern Indiana Bishop Edward Little, who was on the committee that drafted the measure, said prior to the vote that if deputies did not approve the legislation "that would be the end" of debate on a moratorium. The critical discussion in the Episcopal Church came on a day when another American Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), coincidentally planned to decide on whether to allow leeway on the ordination of gay clergy and lay elders and deacons. Mainline Protestant groups, including the Methodists and the largest U.S. Lutheran branch, have been struggling for decades over the traditional Christian prohibition on gay sex as lesbians and gays push for full inclusion in their churches. The issue has frequently dominated debate at national Protestant assemblies. The Episcopal General Convention ends Wednesday, and the House of Bishops could still try to resurrect the ban on gay bishops. But such a measure would need the approval of the very same deputies who have now rejected it. Anglicans sought the changes after the consecration three years ago of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. arm of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, the fellowship of churches with roots that trace back to the Church of England. While conservatives are a minority within the American denomination, the majority of overseas Anglican leaders oppose actively gay clergy. They have pressured Archbishpo of Canterubry Rowan Williams, the communion's spiritual leader, to take some action against Episcopalians if they fail to adhere to that view. Many Anglican churches have already broken ties with the U.S. church over Robinson's elevation. And if overseas leaders dislike the outcome of this week's meeting, it greatly increases the chances that the association of 38 national churches will break apart. Williams has repeatedly expressed concern that the feud over homosexuality would lead to a permanent rift. "We cannot survive as a communion of churches without some common convictions about what it is to live and to make decisions as the Body of Christ," he wrote in a message to the General Convention when it began last week. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Pentagon lists homosexuality as disorder
Updated 6/20/2006 8:41 AM ET By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON — A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position. The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders. Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review. The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay. The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services." The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association. "It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass. Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard. "Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 — a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month. There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004. What do you think?
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
French Presidential Contender Calls For Gay Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 20, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Paris) The leading contender for the Socialist Party nomination to run for President in 2007 has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. "Opening up marriage to same-sex couples is needed in the name of equality, visibility and respect," Segolene Royal tells the LGBT publication Tetu in this week's edition. She said that if her party forms the next government she will introduce a gay marriage bill. "It is essential that everybody has equal rights and dignities and the chance to express themselves freely." Royal also told the publication that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. She becomes the first high ranking politician in France to support both marriage and adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples. In the past Royal has supported limited partner benefits but opposed adoption. Public opinion polls show she has wide support for the nomination but she has been controversial. Royal has four children but has never wed their father, Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande. Royal has labeled marriage a "bourgeois' institution". President Jacques Chirac's ruling conservative UMP party opposes both gay marriage and adoption and only begrudgingly agreed several years ago to grant limited rights to gay and lesbian couples. In 2004 the mayor of a small community in southwestern France performed France's first gay marriage but it was quickly annulled by the government in Paris. The UMP was just as quick Monday to pounce on Royal's support for gay marriage reiterating the government's opposition to same-sex unions. But French public opinion appears to be with Royal. A poll released earlier this month shows that about 60 percent of the population favors same-sex marriage. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Signs Italian Gov't May Be Backtracking On Gay Couple Rights
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 19, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (Rome) Cracks have begun to emerge in Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi's center-left government over the recognition of same-sex relationships. On the weekend Barbara Pollastrini, the equal opportunities minister caused a storm by attending Turin's LGBT pride parade and issuing a letter to pride organizers that said she supports proposed legislation to give legal rights to gay gay and lesbian couples. "I’m thinking about humane and wise legislation for de-facto couples, homosexuals or not - which is important to you and to many of us, her letter said. The issue of granting rights to non-married couples was a plank in Prodi's election campaign in March. There were no details in the platform and since the election that saw Prodi's coalition win a razor thin victory the party has been silent on the issue. Immediately following the release of Pollastrini's letter Prodi spokesperson Silvio Sircana moved quickly to distance the coalition from her position telling reporters that Pollastrini was speaking only for herself. The speed at which Sircana moved has raised concerns that Prodi is having difficulty keeping together the various factions of his coalition which includes the far left Communists and the centrist Christian Democrats. The opposition was equally fast to react to Pollastrini. A spokesperson for Silvio Berlusconi’s rightist Forza Italia party called Pollastrini's letter an "attack on the Italian society, aimed at canceling the Christian vision." Forza Italia is closely aligned with the Vatican. Prodi, has been a moderate supporter of limited rights for same-sex couples since last July when he met with gay activists, but he opposes gay marriage. During the election he said he would bring in a bill to legalize civil partnerships, similar to those in Britain and other parts of the European Union. He also has pledged to expand hate crimes legislation to include sexuality, and improve gender reassignment legislation. Five LGBT candidates were elected to the Italian parliament - all members of Prodi's center-left - including the first transsexual to win national election in Italy. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Poll suggests Canadians accept gay marriage
June 19, 2006 OTTAWA (CP) - A new poll suggests a majority of Canadians accept gay marriage and oppose the idea of reopening the subject in the Commons as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised. The survey, conducted by Environics Research on behalf of Canadians for Equal Marriage, said 62 per cent of respondents felt the same-sex marriage question is settled. Only 27 per cent wanted it reopened. Harper has said the Commons will be asked to vote in the fall on whether same-sex marriage should be revisited. He said the free vote will fulfil a Conservative campaign promise. The Environics poll also suggested that only a bare majority of Conservative voters want the issue reopened. The survey, conducted May 25 to June 2, asked respondents whether they supported same-sex marriage and whether the government should reopen the question. It found 59 per cent of all respondents favoured equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, with 33 per cent opposed The poll results suggested the highest support for same-sex marriage is found in Quebec, where two-thirds of respondents were in favour. "This latest polling demonstrates that overall opposition to equal marriage has declined since passage of the federal legislation," said Derek Leebosh of Environics. "In addition, the strength of the opposition that remains has also fallen and this drop was even more pronounced among Conservative voters, where strong opponents have fallen from 46 per cent to 35 per cent." Laurie Arron, national co-ordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, said the results show the majority of Canadians feel the matter is settled and want to move on. "It's encouraging that so many Canadians, and so many Conservative voters, are against having another vote," he said. Even some Conservative MPs have said recently that they think there's little point in reopening the debate. "At this stage, we've debated it pretty thoroughly," Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn said last month. "Once you've reached the optimum, nobody is really happy, but if it's the best that you can do, then it's probably best to just leave it alone." This month marks the third anniversary of same-sex marriage in Canada. On June 10, 2003, the first marriage licences were issued to same-sex couples following an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. What do you think?
Friday, June 16, 2006
Study: Gay Marriage Could Be Cash Cow For Washington State
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 16, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Olympia, Washington) Another Thursday came and went without a ruling from the Washington state Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. Arguments challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, were made before the Court in March 2005. Since then same-sex couples hoping to marry have been anxiously waiting for the court to rule. Decisions from the high court are issued on Thursdays. But while the wait goes on a new study shows that if same-sex marriage became legal Washington would gain $3.9 million to $5.7 million annually. The study was conducted by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law. It found that savings in means-tested public benefits programs and an increase in tax revenue from same-sex weddings and wedding-related expenditures would account for the windfall in Washington’s budget. “Policymakers sometimes worry that the state will take a budget hit if same-sex couples can marry,” noted Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, study co-author and research director of the Williams Institute. “We found just the opposite—the state gains dramatically if same-sex couples have access to marriage. Any increases in state spending on state employee benefits or on tax breaks for married couples will have only a tiny impact.” The study showed that Washington’s wedding-related businesses would see a $63 million annual increase in demand. Almost 8,000 same-sex couples in Washington are likely to marry, and many other same-sex couples will travel to Washington to marry. Badgett said the the study found that each year the state would see an extra $4 million in retail sales tax revenues from these new weddings. This finding echoes Forbes Magazine’s estimate that if same-sex marriage were legalized across the U.S., gay and lesbian weddings would generate $16.8 billion in spending during the first several years. The other major budgetary benefit for Washington would result from the State treating same-sex and different-sex married couples equally under public assistance programs such as Medicaid and TANF. Extending marriage to gay and lesbian couples would mean that the income of a person’s same-sex married partner would be included when determining eligibility for such programs. Even if only a small percentage of individuals living with partners marry and become ineligible for benefits, the State would save hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, noted Badgett. “This study comes to the same conclusion as at least ten other studies conducted over the last decade,” said Brad Sears, co-author of the study and executive director of UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute. In addition to a series of studies by the Williams Institute, similar analyses have been performed by the Congressional Budget Office, the Comptroller of New York, the Office of Legislative Research of the Connecticut General Assembly, and the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission. “All of these studies have shown that recognizing the rights of same-sex couples will have a positive impact on federal or state budgets,” said Sears. Currently Massachusetts is the only state to allow same-sex marriage. Washington is one of three states where the high court is weighing whether banning gay marriage violates the state constitution. Arguments in New Jersey were heard in February and in New York in May. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Arkansas Supreme Court Hears Gay Foster Parent CaseArkansas Supreme Court Hears Gay Foster Parent Case
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 15, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Little Rock, Arkansas) The state of Arkansas and the American Civil Liberties Union squared off Thursday in a legal battle over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve as foster parents. The state Child Welfare Agency Review Board in March 1999 imposed the ban on placing foster children in households with gay adults in what it called an effort to protect children from disease, violence, sexual abuse, neglect and instability. A challenge was filed that year by the ACLU on behalf of four prospective foster parents. Among them is William Wagner who has been married for 31 years and has a 27-year-old daughter and a 23-year-old son. Although Wagner is a married heterosexual, he is disqualified from serving as a foster parent because his gay son sometimes lives at home. In 2004, Circuit Court Judge Timothy Fox ruled the state Child Welfare Agency Review board had overstepped its authority by trying to regulate ``public morality.'' Fox said that the Arkansas Legislature gave the child-welfare board the power to ``promote the health, safety and welfare of children,'' and that the ban does not accomplish that. He also found that being raised by gay parents doesn't increase the risk of psychological, behavioral, or academic problems for children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are just as well adjusted as children of straight parents. The state appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. ACLU attorney Leslie Cooper asked the justices Thursday to uphold Fox's ruling. "Under state law, every potential foster parent is already required to undergo strict screening before being qualified to foster parent. The trial judge understood that blanket exclusions do nothing to advance the welfare of foster children," argued Cooper, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. "Categorical bans like this one do nothing but tie the hands of child placement professionals and unnecessarily disqualify people who could provide safe, secure homes." But state attorney Kathy L. Hall told the justices that Arkansas already bans unmarried couples who live together from becoming foster parents. Hall argued that because Arkansas banned same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian couples who live together also should be barred from becoming foster parents. The justices gave no indication when they might issue a ruling. Outside the court Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas said that banning gays from serving as foster parents hurts children caught up in the child care system. "Every mainstream child welfare organization has been saying for years that preventing lesbian and gay people from serving as foster parents has no basis in social science and only hurts the children the state should be protecting," said Sklar. "Children who need foster homes deserve better than to be deprived of good homes just so the state can make a misguided political statement against gay people." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Anti-Gay Marriage Measure Likely To Fail Illinois Poll Shows
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 15, 2006 - 11:00 am ET (Chicago, Illinois) A new poll shows that while most Illinois voters oppose same-sex marriage only 40 percent think the state Constitution should be amended. The poll, by the Glengariff Group, an independent strategic planning and market research firm, found that 50 percent of voters opposed amending the state Constitution with 10 percent undecided. It also found most people in the state opposed amending the US Constitution. The survey was taken while the Board of Elections counts the valid signatures on a ballot initiative by a statewide conservative groups. Protect Marriage Illinois submitted 340-thousand names for the referendum, more than the 283-thousand required, but opponents predict it may not be enough to get on the ballot. Scruitineers for Equality Illinois, the state's largest LGBT civil rights organization, say they have found numerous errors and "bogus" signatures on the petitions. "In terms of the Illinois referendum, I think [the poll shows] it's in trouble," Glengariff CEO Richard Czuba told 365Gay.com. Asked about the disparity between opposition for both an amendment and for same-sex marriage Czuba said that the poll indicates people are willing to support gay couples rights as long as it isn't called marriage. "They seem to be hung up on the word marriage but are in favor of giving same-sex couples [the rights] of marriage," he said. Rick Garcia, the Director of Public Policy for Equality Illinois agrees. "[The poll] shows what we know - that a majority of majority of people are troubled by the 'M' word when it comes to same-sex marriage. Illinois residents want their neighbors be treated fairly and equitably but when you use the 'M' word there is a discomfort level." Even if the measure gets on the November ballot it is nonbinding. Citizen referenda in Illinois can only prod the legislature to act. The measure calls upon the Illinois lawmakers to enact a constitutional amendment to ban all unions of same-sex couples including marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. The organization began collecting signatures after the legislature last year rejected an attempt to pass an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Illinois already blocks same-sex marriage under a 1996 law. Glengariff conducted the poll, released this week, on its own, although last year it did a similar survey for Equality Illinois. The 2005 survey also showed little interest in amending either the Illinois or the US Constitution, and indicates Protect Marriage has gained little traction despite a heavy media campaign. Amending the Illinois Constitution also is opposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent in November, state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Boyd's PA gay marriage bill trimmed
State Senate committee drops civil-unions clause By Dave Pidgeon, Intelligencer Journal Staff Intelligencer Journal Published: Jun 15, 2006 7:47 AM EST LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - A state Senate committee Wednesday stripped a civil unions ban from a proposed amendment to the state constitution, a move that may set the marriage definition effort back two years. The committee said the language about civil unions was ambiguous and could make voters less likely to approve the amendment.The state Senate Judiciary Committee rewrote the language of the proposed amendment, altering what the state House passed June 6.That's problematic for supporters of the House version, because constitutional amendments must pass through several time-consuming parliamentary steps before going to voters for approval."I have a lot of work to do," said state Rep. Scott Boyd, the Lampeter Republican who was the amendment's prime sponsor in the state House. "I'm going to try to meet with some of the folks on the committee who thought this was necessary and try to make my case."Debate in the Judiciary Committee centered Wednesday around a clause in the proposed amendment that would forbid the state or its political subdivisions from recognizing any domestic union other than monogamous, heterosexual marriage.The committee stripped the amendment of that language, but left unchanged the part that would define marriage as a man/woman relationship. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote.State Sen. Jane Earll, a Republican from Erie County, pitched the language changes.Owen Thomas, a spokesman for Earll, said the changes strengthen the amendment by making the language simpler."When legislative language is cloudy and ambiguous, when legal scholars cannot agree to what it means, that language should not be in there," Thomas said. "It will be confusing to the legal experts and the voters."Thomas said the proposed amendment now is nearly identical to a 1996 state law that defined marriage as a one-man-one-woman union.Boyd said without the extra language the amendment could be susceptible to legal challenge by a couple seeking civil union status.With the language absent from the proposed amendment, a gay or lesbian couple "could go to another state, like Vermont or Washington, enter a civil union, and Pennsylvania is required by the federal Constitution" to recognize that union, Boyd said.He said the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment -- championed by Lancaster legislator Thaddeus Stevens in 1866 to protect rights of freed slaves -- would demand the state recognize the civil union."What disappointed me was at this late date, all of a sudden there was this change," Boyd said. "But this is a legislative process. This is what we do. Nothing's simple. It's work."To amend the state constitution, both chambers of the General Assembly must pass identical bills in consecutive legislative sessions. Afterwards, the proposed amendment would be put to a voter referendum.The state House passed Boyd's bill 136-61 on June 6. Boyd said if the Senate passes that bill before recessing for the summer on June 30, voters could have their say next year.However, if the Senate enacts the Earll language changes, it would delay a voter referendum until 2009.The Rev. Debbie Coggin of the Mountville-based Vision of Hope MCC, which ministers to gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, said even if people in her community can't marry, they want something of equal status.Civil unions, Coggin said, would allow couples to have access to hospital visitation rights, health care benefits and other amenities otherwise denied to unmarried couples."What most gay and lesbian people desire is something that would recognize our relationships as equal (to marriage)," she said. What do you think?
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Chamber Of Commerce To Oppose Virginia Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 14, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Greater Falls Church, Virginia) The Chamber of Commerce in a Fairfax Country town has gone on record opposing a proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The Greater Falls Church Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously to fight the amendment, which will go to voters in November. The move makes it the first business organization in the state and possibly the nation to publicly oppose such an amendment. The Virginia legislature overwhelmingly approved the proposed amendment earlier this year. Not only does it forbid same-sex marriage it blocks civil unions and could be used to void domestic partner benefits. The scope of the amendment, virtually canceling all contracts between unmarried persons, was of particular concern to the Chamber. The resolution stated, "it would render all business partnerships that could be construed or challenged as being organized after such a fashion de facto void and punishable by the law, disqualifiable from government contract bidding and subject to lawsuits by anyone dealing with such a business partnership." The board's resolution noted that laws are already on the books in Virginia prohibiting marriage and its benefits between two persons of the same gender, and because of that declares the amendment "frivolous and its appearance on the November ballot and all costs associated with that" as "a waste of government resources and taxpayer dollars." "We're very pleased to see that the Commonwealth coalition continues to grow drawing support from a diverse set of organizations," Diana Mason of Equality Virginia told 365Gay.com. Falls Church is in Northern Virginia, generally regarded as more liberal the the rest of the state, and has a large well organized LGBT community. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) also opposes the amendment. Kaine has said that he supports limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but also is alarmed that the amendment that prohibits two people of the same gender from entering any legal agreement that approximates the rights and privileges of marriage. Kaine has said he will vote against the amendment. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
European Parliament Acts On Rising Homophobia
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 14, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Brussels) Members of the European Parliament will vote Thursday on a motion condemning rising incidents of homophobia and racism in member states. The resolution calls on the EU countries to toughen their laws to deal with hate crimes. It also deplores the fact that the Council of Europe has been unable to adopt a 2001 proposal to combat hate. The resolution calls on the council to restart the process and reach agreement on explicitly extending it to "homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and other types of offences motivated by phobia or hatred based on ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religion or other irrational grounds." It also is expected that MEPs will urge all member states to effectively implement the anti-discrimination directives and the Commission to bring before the Court of Justice those Member States which fail to do so. Two countries are expected to come under the harshest criticism: Russia and Poland. In Russia, Moscow police broke up a gay pride march in May after mayor Yuri Luzhkov banned the parade. Some 120 gays were arrested. MEPs are expected Thursday to call on the EU representatives at the upcoming G8 Summit to raise the issue of human rights with the Russian as a matter of urgency. In Poland, Warsaw gays were allowed to hold their first parade after being rejected for the past three years. Nevertheless the EU says it is concerned the conservative federal government continues to ignore a warning issued last year that it end its persecution of gays. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
$100,000 Prize For Best Video On Tolerance
by The Associated Press June 14, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Los Angeles, California) Current TV wants to get a message out about tolerance and appreciation of diversity - and it's asking viewers to help. The channel, in partnership with the nonprofit, New York-based Third Millennium Foundation, said Wednesday it is sponsoring a summer video contest, "Seeds of Tolerance," aimed at promoting understanding and with a $100,000 prize for the top film. Judges include Paul Haggis, Edward Norton, Melissa Etheridge and Margaret Cho. "Having personally experienced the sting of being labeled 'different', I appreciate Current TV's effort to teach tolerance - or, more accurately, to encourage their viewers to teach their peers," Etheridge, who is gay, said in a statement released by the channel. "I commend Current TV for recognizing that it is our differences that make us stronger and for encouraging young people to embrace the spirit of tolerance," Haggis said in a statement. Current TV, which already makes viewer videos a significant part of its programming, said the contest is open to filmmakers 18 and older and of all levels of experience. Films can be up to 10 minutes long and be accompanied by comments on how a project can inspire change. Other requirements are posted on the Current Web site http://www.current.tv/tolerance. Films can be submitted to the site and will be accepted through Aug. 15. The judges will choose five semifinalists, whose work will be shown on Current TV. In September, viewers will choose the grand-prize winner and two finalists who will each receive $10,000. The top winner will also get $15,000 to give to the charity of his or her choice. The prizes are being funded by the Third Millennium Foundation, founded in 2000 to counter intolerance through childhood education and other programs. Former Vice President Al Gore is chairman of Current TV, which he co-founded with Joel Hyatt, the chief executive officer. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Prof Dropped For Opposing Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 14, 2006 - 11:00 am ET (Provo, Utah) A Brigham Young University professor who publicly spoke out against the Mormon Church's support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has been told he will not be returning to the school this fall. Last month, in a letter read in all congregations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints senior officials of the denomination called on church members to lobby their senators to support the amendment. The Church position rankled Jeffrey Nielsen, a Mormon and a part-time philosophy professor at the LDS Church-owned school. In an op-ed article for The Salt Lake Tribune Nielsen went public with his opposition. "I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral," he wrote in the article published June 4, before the Senate failed to pass the proposed amendment. Four days later he was told his contract would not be renewed. "In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church," he was told in a letter signed by Philosophy Department Chair Daniel Graham. "Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over." Despite the rebuke and the loss of his job Nielsen said he remains a devout member of the church. Earlier this month Brigham Young disciplined five students for taking part in a pro-gay demonstration by Soulforce. The students joined members of the Equality Ride for two days of demonstrations against the school's policy on gays in April. Brigham Young not only bars openly gay students from enrolment but makes public support for LGBT issues a punishable offence. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Aussie Senate gay marriage vote fails
June 15, 2006 - 2:01PM The federal government's ban on the ACT's civil unions law remains in place after Labor and the minor parties lost their bid in the Senate to reverse it. Senators voted 32-30 to reject a motion which would have disallowed a regulation signed yesterday by Governor-General Michael Jeffery at the instigation of Attorney General Philip Ruddock. That allowed the federal government to exert its constitutional power to overturn the ACT civil unions legislation. ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries crossed the floor to vote with the opposition and minor parties against his own colleagues. That made him the first Liberal senator to vote against the government in its 10 years in office. However Family First Senator Steve Fielding voted with the government, giving it the numbers to comfortably defeat the motion. 'Homophobic decision' ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell has lashed out at the Senate decision to reject a move to overturn the federal ban on civil union laws, describing it homophobic. Senators today voted 32-30 to reject the motion which would have reversed the federal government's ban on the ACT law. "I am disappointed by the decision, but not surprised," Mr Corbell said. "It is a homophobic decision." Mr Corbell supported the historic decision of Liberal senator Gary Humphries to cross the floor. "I welcome his decision to support the right of the territory to make laws that affect our community." The ACT will now look to create a new act, but Mr Corbell warned it will not be watering down the intention of the original law. "It's still our intention to give the same level of recognition provided for in the Civil Unions Act," Mr Corbell said. AAP What do you think?
The Bigots' Last Gasp
Paul Waldman June 14, 2006 Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of the new book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success , just released by John Wiley & Sons. The views expressed here are his own. Few people could have been surprised that as election day approaches, Republicans in Congress would turn away from substantive issues and back to the well of homophobia to try to squeeze one more victory from the fear and hatred of their most committed supporters. But what is most striking about their current push to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage is how outdated the effort already seems. It’s like, so 2004. The fact that the constitutional amendment is beginning to sound a bit like the macarena—a lot of Americans thought it was catchy once, but most aren’t too eager to hear it again—is testimony to how quickly this issue is evolving. In fact, even though a majority of Americans still oppose the legalization of gay marriage (the number has fallen to 51 percent in a recent Pew poll, the right has already lost this battle. There will be gay marriage everywhere in America, and it will be supported by most Americans. The only question is whether it happens in five years or ten years or 20 years. This is occurring not just because people’s opinions are changing as the virtuous cycle takes hold (more gay people are out, which means more people know someone who is gay, which means people get more comfortable with it, which means more people feel free to come out, and around we go). The most important factor is generational replacement: those most opposed to civil rights for gay Americans are the older generations, who won’t be around forever. A majority of people under 35 already support gay marriage; anyone who thinks that future generations will be less supportive of equality than those living today, raise your hand. We will see what we have seen in previous civil rights battles: change will happen first in progressive states, then in what we now consider purple states, and finally in the South (Although it may take a while there; consider that Alabama finally got around to repealing its law against interracial marriage in 2000. That is not a typo. And 40 percent of Alabamians voted to keep the law on the books.) Republicans will go through a period of speaking the right words to the rest of the country even as they mine prejudice for votes in the South, just as they have on race. But eventually they will repudiate their own history and stop doing even that. To get a sense of how fast things have changed on this issue, let’s review a bit of recent history. In April 1997, actress Ellen DeGeneres and the character she played on the sitcom “Ellen” simultaneously came out of the closet. It was a cultural earthquake: a Lexis-Nexis search for March, April, and May of that year produces no fewer than 1,465 news stories about DeGeneres’ coming out, including 758—or over 25 stories per day— that April. It was so shocking that for a time, people seemed to talk of little else. Yet here we are less than a decade later, and it seems hard to understand why it was such a big deal. Television and movies are full of gay characters, and as a consequence more and more Americans know someone who is gay (or rather, who they know is gay), even if that person is only a character on one of their favorite shows. In 1992, 42 percent of Americans told the CBS/New York Times poll that they personally knew a gay person; by 2004 the number had risen to 69 percent in a Los Angeles Times poll. And nothing changes opinions about gay rights faster than learning that someone you care for is gay. And consider how fast the politics have changed. It’s true that in 2004 anti-gay marriage initiatives succeeded in 11 states. But the most remarkable thing was that we were discussing the issue at all. For years, gay activists felt that marriage equality was too dramatic a change to attempt to achieve. It was the right wing that used the specter of gay marriage as a scare tactic, but before you knew it we were seriously debating the issue. Remember the fury over gays in the military that led to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”? Today, by a two-to-one margin the public thinks gay people should be able to serve openly in the armed forces. When Howard Dean started campaigning for the presidency in 2002, those in the know in Washington considered him the longest of long shots, not because he was against the Iraq war or because he came from a small state, but because he signed a civil unions bill as governor of Vermont. This, it was thought, ensured that regular Americans would see him as a far-out lefty kook. But by the time the primaries came to a close, all the other Democratic candidates had embraced civil unions (excepting those who endorsed gay marriage itself). And not long before election day, none other than George W. Bush said that if a state wanted to legalize civil unions, that was OK with him. Today, as Bush gives speeches in favor of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, White House sources are trotted out to whisper to reporters that his heart isn’t in it. He’s not really a hateful guy, he just has to appease his base. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this sort of thing from Bush. According to Glen Maxey, who was then a Texas state legislator, during a 1999 debate about gays being permitted to adopt, Bush told him on the floor of the Texas legislature: “Glen, I value you as a person. I value you as a human being. And I want you to know that what I say publicly about gay people does not pertain to you personally.” Which is a nice thing to hear, when the guy telling you then turns around to argue that you’re such a moral reprobate that you shouldn’t be permitted to adopt children. All of his supposed personal goodwill notwithstanding, Bush’s effort to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage will one day be seen as of a piece with George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door: a relic of an earlier, uglier time, a politician playing on the worst instincts and prejudices of his most loyal supporters. It will be an episode in a story where the ending is a happy one in which justice prevails.In our lifetimes, people who point to Leviticus as the reason they absolutely cannot abide homosexuality will come to look a bit like those who now hold fast to the view that the punishment for working on the Sabbath should be death (Exodus 31:15, in case you’re wondering). And as anti-gay sentiment of the kind Bush hopes to tap becomes the hallmark of fringe thought, the views he and his Republican compatriots express today will seem more and more repellent to more and more Americans. We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that prominent Democrats have hardly been models of moral courage on this issue; most now support civil unions while continuing to hold that “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” even though it is hard to avoid the feeling that they know what’s right but don’t have the guts to say it. But it’s always foolish to look to politicians for moral leadership. Not to worry—once they see how far the public has moved, they’ll come around. What do you think?
Rice urges respect in gay marriage debate
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday urged respect and sensitivity in the debate over gay marriage, but ducked a question about her own views on the question. "This is an issue that can be debated and can be discussed in our country with respect for every human being," Rice told a newspaper interviewer. "When we get into difficult debates about social policy, we get into difficult debates that touch people's lives, the only thing that I ask is that Americans do it with a kind of sensitivity that real individuals and real human beings are involved here." The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by a wide margin last week. It was a defeat for President Bush and other Republicans who hope the issue will rally GOP voters for the November elections. The amendment could be brought up again. Asked for her opinion of the amendment, Rice told The News & Record of Greensboro, N.C., "This is not my area of expertise or, frankly, my area of concentration at this point." Rice spoke following an address to the Southern Baptist Convention. The newly chosen president of the nation's largest Protestant denomination opposes gay marriage, as does Bush. "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution," Bush said before the Senate vote. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage - 19 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. The proposed federal amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. After approval by Congress, it would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. What do you think?
Gay Couples Pin Hopes on Senators
SAME-sex couples wanting to tie the knot are pinning their hopes on a push by senators tomorrow to overturn the Federal Government's decision to quash the ACT's civil union laws.Debate will start in the Senate tomorrow morning, with the Australian Greens and Democrats to move a disallowance motion, the final option open to them to try to stop the federal government's move. ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries says he cannot support the government's decision, but is yet to decide if he will support the disallowance motion. "I am deeply unhappy about the decision that has been made," the ACT senator and former ACT chief minister said. "The nature of the way in which I indicate that position is a matter I am yet to determine, based on further discussions with colleagues." Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says he thinks the disallowance motion has a good chance of succeeding. He says they will have support from Labor and the Democrats in making a stand against what he called Prime Minister John Howard's last-century view of the world. The debate comes after the Federal Government yesterday disallowed the ACT's Civil Unions Act, which would have allowed homosexual couples in the territory to enter into civil unions, giving them the same legal recognition traditional marriages receive. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock insists the legislation is an attack against the federal Marriage Act. He said the ACT legislation opened the door to bigamy and also contradicted the Marriage Act's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. "We wanted to remove any potential ambiguity and we set out a number of areas where that was possible," Mr Ruddock told ABC radio. "What they (ACT legislators) are doing is providing for a bigamous, potentially, relationship which to all intentional purposes replicates marriage." Mr Ruddock said he would not be offering to amend the legislation for the territory. "In these issues the framing of the legislation is a matter for the territory and we don't seek to draft their legislation for them and I think if we did they would take offence." What do you think?
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Dueling Gay Amendments Duke It Out In CO Court
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 14, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Denver, Colorado) Supporters of a legislature approved ballot measure that would allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners in Colorado are suing to block a counter measure from going to voters. Legislation approving the referendum on the partner registry cleared the legislature last month and will appear on the ballot in November. Opponents of the measure have begun collecting signatures to get a referendum placed before voters that would nullify it by barring the any legal status "similar to marriage" for gay and lesbian couples. LGBT civil rights group Coloradans for Fairness and Equality has filed a motion in the Colorado Supreme Court asking the justices to block the anti-gay measure from appearing on the ballot. The group says that the second referendum is confusing, and deals with more than one subject. Colorado law permits only one issue to be placed on any one referendum question. Meanwhile a third ballot question would ask voters to approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Colorado. It would amend the state constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman". Polls in the state have indicated that most voters would approve banning same-sex marriage in the constitution but are opposed to including partner benefits. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Australia invalidates gay civil-union law
Associated Press Tuesday, June 13, 2006 / 10:49 AM SUMMARY: The rightist federal government invokes a little-used power to invalidate the new law creating same-sex unions in the Australian Capital Territory. CANBERRA, Australia -- Conservative Prime Minister John Howard's federal government has invoked special powers to invalidate a territorial law that had been the first in Australia giving legal recognition to same-sex relationships. The Australian Capital Territory, which includes the national capital, Canberra, last month became the first of Australia's six states and two territories to legally recognize gay and lesbian relationships. The new law established a domestic relationship -- separate from marriage -- under which same-sex couples were to be given the same rights as heterosexual partnerships. Officials in Howard's center-right coalition -- which amended federal marriage laws in 2004 to ensure that only men and women can marry -- opposed the law, saying it effectively legalized same-sex marriage. Attorney General Philip Ruddock said the federal government had used its power over territories -- which have their own parliaments and operate similarly to U.S. states -- to invalidate the law. The authority is rarely used. "The ACT civil relationships ordinance has been disallowed," Ruddock told reporters Tuesday. "That means, in effect, that the legislative amendments introduced to establish a civil arrangement for same-sex parties and others in the ACT will no longer be law." What do you think?
Gay marriage is no threat
By Joan Reivich My 75-year-old husband and I have been trying to figure out how our marriage would be threatened if gay and lesbian couples tied the knot, just as we did 22 years ago. Political pollsters say we're in the demographic group (older Americans) most likely to oppose same-sex marriage, so I decided to informally poll my friends to see if this is an important issue to them. I asked eight friends what their most pressing concerns were. My question elicited a torrent of concerns: finding cures for cancer and Alzheimer's, high property taxes, the chaos in Iraq, fears about the environment, and anxiety that Social Security might not be around when their children retire. When I finally brought up the prospect of gay marriage, not one person was concerned. In fact, they thought everyone should have the right to marry. As the parents of four married children and grandparents to 15, my husband and I have a vested interest in strong families. That's why I've been following closely the votes in Harrisburg and Washington that would amend our Pennsylvania and federal constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and prohibit civil unions. Doing so supposedly would protect American families. My observation of gays and lesbians is that their lives pretty much consist of the same elements as mine: going to work or volunteering, caring for aging parents, trying hard to create meaningful relationships, and, yes, for some, raising families. What these families do want, I believe, is recognition of their love and commitment, as well as things we heterosexuals take for granted, such as pension rights, health-care coverage, and hospital visitation. While at a rally against the marriage amendment in Harrisburg in March, I heard a gay father relate how when he took his young daughter to the hospital from a soccer game, where she had broken her leg, he was denied the right to stay at her bedside and sign for treatment. The reason: He wasn't her "legal" father. She was traumatized twice that day, he said. For more than 25 years, I worked professionally with families struggling to make a better life for their children. I've seen dads who held three jobs to pay for their child's medicine. I've heard mothers talk about teaching their children not to pick up needles in the street. I've seen lead paint on windowsills and broken glass in playgrounds. Not once did any parent say banning gay marriage would make his family's life better. Our president - if he really cared about families - would not be speaking out in favor of the marriage ban. Instead, he would be using his bully pulpit to address the real problems facing families, including the fact that many heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Our legislators in Harrisburg and Washington would be passing laws to take guns off the street and make health care available to all. My husband and I will probably not live long enough to see all of our grandchildren reach adulthood. But we would like to know that regardless of their sexual orientation, none will be second-class citizens. We want each of them to have the same legal right to marry and, if he or she chooses, raise a family. I know that, gay or straight, they would all make wonderful parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics, never known as a hotbed of radicalism, agrees with me that sexual orientation is no bar to raising healthy and happy kids. In fact, the academy feels that children being raised by same-sex parents - and their moms and dads - deserve "the serenity that comes with legal recognition." At my elementary school graduation in Upper Darby 56 years ago this month, I was awarded the Bywood School Good Citizenship Medal. I can see it now with its red, white and blue ribbon, its torch of freedom, and my name engraved across its back. What I believed in then, I believe in now: liberty and justice for all. That's why I'm calling my legislators in Harrisburg and Washington. I hope you will, too. What do you think?
Pa. Senate panel passes gay marriage ban; no ban on unions
MARC LEVY Associated Press HARRISBURG, Pa. - A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania, but it shortened the reach of the legislation by removing a portion that also would have outlawed civil unions. The vote to change the legislation, which passed the House last week, came after sharp debate between Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie, questioned whether a constitutional amendment is even needed since state law already bans gay marriage. There is no existing court challenge to the law and no indication that a state judge would strike it down, she said. "Many of us believe we are fighting ghosts," Earll said. The bill now heads to the full Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. It also would need approval from the House this month if the multiyear process of approving a constitutional amendment is to continue. Earll, who sponsored the change to the House bill, characterized it as a compromise, but lawmakers and advocates who supported the previous bill passed by the House on June 6 disagreed. Civil unions are tantamount to marriages, and allowing them would scuttle the intent of the House version - if not the whole effort, they said. "I just think this amendment destroys the entire purpose" of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Sen. Jane Orie, R-Allegheny, said during debate. Sen. John Gordner, R-Columbia, said a vote to remove the language against civil unions was a vote allowing the courts to create such unions, which he called "judicial activism." Earll shot back, "I object to that." Amending the constitution requires the approval by the House and Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly and then the approval of voters in a statewide referendum. The earliest a proposed amendment can be placed on the statewide ballot is 2007. But conservatives who supported the broader ban worried that changing the bill will lengthen the debate and run out the clock on the period that the Legislature has to approve a constitutional amendment this year. Constitutionally, any such legislation must be approved three months before the November general election. However, the House and Senate have an extremely busy June on tap - including finalizing a $25 billion-plus state budget that needs to be in place by July 1 - before they are scheduled for a two-month vacation from Harrisburg. Some proponents of changing the bill to ban just gay marriage and not civil unions said the change would avoid unintended consequences - such as preventing private or government employers from extending health benefits to same-sex couples. The change to limit the scope of the bill passed 9-5 before the committee voted 13-1 to send the amended bill to the full Senate. Only Orie voted against it. The panel's five Democrats stayed quiet during the debate and votes. Afterward, Sen. J. Barry Stout, D-Washington, scolded the drive to ban gay marriage as a useless diversion of lawmakers' attention away from subjects that really matter, like raising the minimum wage and cutting property taxes. "People are sick and tired of us not addressing the immediate concerns of our constituents," Stout said. Twenty states have adopted constitutional definitions outlawing gay marriage - including some that ban civil unions - and at least six others have a ballot question on such a ban this year. What do you think?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Mom Sues Louisville Over Gay Son's Murder
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 13, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Louisville, Kentucky) When Rosalynd Blair's son, Timothy, was shot and killed on a Louisville street last year police said they would keep her updated on the progress of their investigation. That was last May. Since then Blair says she has been met with a wall of silence. There has been no arrest and Blair believes little or nothing was done in investigating Timothy's killing. The reason: he was a gay man who did drag. The night he was killed Timothy was in women's clothing. The 19 year old was gunned down as he walked near 28th and Magazine. "I've called Chief White several times without one call returned," Blair told WAVE television. Blair believes her son's killing was a hate crime but police disagree. They say they believe the Timothy knew his killer. But despite a number of tips no one has been brought to justice. To make matters worse, said Blair, she was told by the coroner she could not see her son. Blair says she has been doing her own investigation and believes she knows who the killer is, but she says police won't talk to her. Now, she's going to court. "We are going to have our attorney file suit against the city and this police department," she told WAVE. Police would not comment on the suit but said that the investigation is ongoing. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
British Gay Celebrity Couple To Exchange Vows
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 12, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Edinburgh) Scots television stars Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan are tying the knot. Audiences on both sides of the Atlantic have followed their exploits as interior decorators, and even though their relationship was never mentioned on any of their series it was obvious the style obsessed pair were a couple. In fact, they've been together for 21 years. They fronted such Brit series as "How Not To Decorate" and "The Million Pound Property Experiment". But it was their latest series that convinced them it was time to formalize their relationship. According to McAllister the idea hit them while they were shooting "Colin and Justin's Wedding Belles for Five", where they acted as wedding planners. "We were banging on about the program and how much we enjoyed doing it then we looked at each other and started laughing," "We both said 'we should do this'. It wasn't that one of us went down on one knee. And we haven't got engagement rings. We just know now we want to do this." They are the latest celebrity gay couple to take advantage of Britain's civil partnerships. Elton John and David Furnish tied the knot in Windsor last December. George Michael has announced he will tie the knot with longtime partner Kenny Goss but no date has been set. Civil partnerships give same-sex couples an opportunity to register their relationships and receive most of the same benefits accorded married couples including pension, immigration, and property rights. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Episcopal Convention Tries To Ease Feud Over Gay Bishop
by The Associated Press June 12, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Columbus, Ohio Three years after confirming its first openly gay bishop, the U.S. Episcopal Church must decide whether to appease irate Anglicans by promising not to do it again - at least for now. The choice puts a heavy burden on the Episcopal General Convention, which starts Tuesday in Columbus, Ohio: If Anglican leaders don't like the outcome of the American meeting, the world Anglican communion could break apart. ``Whether it will end up being two camps that still sit in the same tent, or whether they will finally decide to walk in different paths, I don't know,'' said David Steinmetz, a Duke University expert in Christian history. ``Nobody knows at this moment.'' New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who lives with his longtime male partner, became an icon for gay acceptance after the 2003 General Convention, where his election was approved. His supporters contend the Bible does not bar monogamous gay relationships; detractors hold that Scripture explicitly condemns gay sex. Anger over Robinson's elevation has echoed throughout the 77 million-member communion, where conservative views dominate. The Episcopal Church, the U.S. arm of Anglicanism, has scrambled to calm the worldwide furor. New York Bishop Mark Sisk, co-chairman of an Episcopal panel guiding the convention debate, believes that many bishops and parishioners have no regrets about Robinson's consecration, ``but are not anxious to exacerbate a crisis.'' The ``hope is that something will get passed that will signal to our communion that we actually are trying to listen carefully'' to overseas concerns, Sisk said. Circumstances inside the American denomination are less dire. Conservatives are a minority within the 2.3 million-member church, which has been shaken by infighting, but remains intact. Four predominantly conservative dioceses _ Dallas, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Ill., and San Joaquin, Calif. _ have withheld payments to the national church, according to Canon Robert Williams, a national Episcopal spokesman. And several parishes have voted to leave the denomination, prompting lawsuits over church property. Williams puts the number of departing congregations at 30 out of 7,679; the American Anglican Council, a conservative advocacy group, says the figure is closer to 140. The biggest change, however, and the largest threat according to liberals, is the formation of the Pittsburgh-based Anglican Communion Network. The association represents 10 U.S. dioceses and more than 900 traditional parishes that oppose ordaining gays. The network remains part of the Episcopal Church for now, but has separated from Episcopal leaders and is working closely with conservative archbishops overseas. Network leaders won't give details of their post-convention plans, but they are manoeuvring over the long-term for greater status within the Anglican communion. They could ultimately attempt to replace the Episcopal Church as the American member of the communion. ``None of us wants the communion to break up,'' said Rev. Peter Moore, former dean of the conservative Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa., ``but we realize we're talking different languages.'' While hoping for reconciliation, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, has held meetings to prepare for any negative world reaction to the Columbus assembly, which ends June 21. One concern is that the rift will become so bad that frustrated conservative churches, particularly in the developing world, will leave the communion. The Episcopal House of Bishops, meanwhile, recently started a defence fund that will help dioceses in legal battles against parishes that want to leave and take their property with them. The key decision before delegates is their response to the 2004 Windsor Report. That document was written by an international panel on Anglican unity, which asked for a moratorium on electing partnered gay bishops and a temporary ban on creating official prayer services for blessing same-sex couples. The Episcopal committee co-led by Sisk crafted legislation based on these requests _ but stopped short of backing a moratorium. Instead, the committee proposed that dioceses ``exercise very considerable caution'' in bishop elections from now on. The panel also suggested a temporary bar on same-gender liturgies, but used wording that leaves an opening for individual priests to conduct the ceremonies informally. Convention delegates can revise or reject the proposals. Separately, a new leader for the Episcopal Church will be elected at the convention from a field of seven nominees. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's nine-year term ends this year and church observers say none of the nominees would take the church in a dramatically different direction. Delegates will also vote on whether to consider reparations for black Episcopalians over the church's past support for slavery and segregation. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Gay Friendly Church To Publish Names Of Florida Marriage Amendment Supporters
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 12, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Jacksonville, Florida) A small Jacksonville church announced Monday it is setting up a Web site to publish the names of people who signed petitions calling for a plebiscite on a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida. The site is similar to one in Massachusetts, set up after gay marriage foes began a petition drive in that state. In the Massachusetts case many of the people's names collected turned out to be bogus leading to a legislative inquiry. Christ Church of Peace in Jacksonville believes the same will be found in Florida. The nondenominational church has a large LGBT membership. Of the 611,009 signatures necessary to place the amendment on the November 2006 ballot in Florida, only 455,363 were gathered by the February 1, 2006, deadline. Under Florida law the group behind the ballot measure, Florida4Marriage, can continue to add names to the petition in a bid to get it on the 2008 ballot. If the amendment were to pass, it would amend Florida’s State Constitution to define marriage as a “legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and that, “no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” The second part of the amendment, say opponents of the measure would also ban civil unions and could threaten domestic partner benefits. "A portion of our church’s vision statement reads, ‘We will be…a tool for social change.’ And what better way is there to advocate for change than to support equal rights for all people," said the Rev. Gary DeBusk, pastor of Christ Church of Peace. The church was aided in creating the Web site by the Massachusetts gay couple behind the site in that state. Know Thy Neighbor Massachusetts urged people to check to see if their names had been placed on the petitions without their knowledge. Dozens of people claimed their had been victims of "bait and switch" or found their names on the petitions without ever signing them. As a result the state legislature tightened the laws involving the gathering of signatures. Nevertheless supporters of the amendment got enough names to force the legislature to hold a joint session on the amendment. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Minnesota Democrats Add Gay Support To Platform
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 12, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (Rochester, Minnesota) Minnesota's wing of the Democratic Party - the DFL - overwhelmingly voted to add a plank to the party platform opposing constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. The party met over the weekend in Rochester. Three-quarters of delegates voted in favor of opposing the amendments. To add a plank, resolutions needed 60 percent of delegate support. A proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage failed last week in the Senate but Republicans vowed to keep pressing the issue. Although the measure is dead for this session the House still intends on holding its own vote. A similar amendment to the Minnesota state constitution died in committee earlier this year. Nevertheless, two "concerned citizens groups" are campaigning to get it reintroduced next year. The marriage amendment plank was one of 36 added to the platform. DFLers endorsed the repeal of the Patriot Act, which gave federal law enforcers more power after the Sept. 11 attacks. They registered oppositions to new abortion restrictions. They also said they don't want genetically engineered wild rice in Minnesota and they favor increased spending more money on early childhood education. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Canada invites US gay couples to get married
Canada is one of the few countries in the world to extend full marriage equality to all people 12-June-2006PinkNews.co.uk writerThe Canadian Tourism Commission has launched a new gay and lesbian advertising campaign with a wedding invitation for US same-sex couples. The country is one of few in the world to extend full marriage equality to all people. The ad first appeared in the May 2006 issue of Passport magazine, as part of a gay and lesbian integrated marketing programme that will also include sponsorship of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT,) film festivals, the Human Rights Campaign and special events in select markets across the US.Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are among the favourite destinations for gay and lesbian travellers. The provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia all legalised same-sex marriage prior to federal extension of marriage equality, with a significant percentage of all marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples going to Americans. In fact, in some cases Americans have outnumbered Canadians seeking licenses. The latest campaign recognises that marriage is just one more reason to visit Canada, whether travellers plan to wed or not. "There are so many reasons to visit Canada. All travellers are welcome and any traveller can tailor a travel experience that is just right for them," said Susan Iris, vice president, US for the Canadian Tourism Commission. "We have great cities that offer everything from European charm to a modern fusion of culture, and all that is reflected in our food, shopping and atmosphere. We believe that is why so many people are choosing to come see Canada." Last week the US Senate rejected a bill calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. What do you think?
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Gay Communities Facing More Than Marriage Amendment Battle
by The Associated Press June 11, 2006 - 4:00 pm ET (Atlanta, Georgia) When Donna Waddell's partner of 11 years, Jean Tyson, complained of chest pains, Waddell dialed 911. As the ambulance was en route, Waddell dashed for the lock box where the couple keeps their durable power of attorney. If Tyson became unconscious and medical decisions needed to be made, Waddell, a nurse, knew she'd need the papers. And she worried that without them she wouldn't be able to get into Tyson's hospital room because of family-only rules. With the debate raging in Georgia - and nationally - over a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, Waddell and many others in the gay and lesbian community say they have less ambitious, and more mundane, concerns. "I don't want to minimize the importance of same-sex marriage. Ultimately, it's very important," Waddell, 59, said. "But we've got a lot of other things we need to take care of before we get there." Hate crimes, domestic partner benefits, securing hospital visitation, job protections and adoption are issues that top the agenda for many of Georgia's gay and lesbian residents. Some say the relentless focus on the polarizing topic of gay marriage has been driven by opponents of such unions, not the gay community. They say it's been a damaging distraction, especially since there's already a state law on the books that makes it clear that same-sex marriages aren't recognized in Georgia. "Let's be honest," said Kevin Clark, who runs a bed and breakfast in Savannah which caters to gay tourists. "Gay marriage is not going to happen in Georgia anytime soon. We need to look at what we can get done. But instead ALL we hear about is gay marriage. It stops anything else from happening." If the positions of the three major candidates for governor are any indication, the gay community has a long way to go. Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue opposes civil unions, domestic partner benefits for state employees and amending state non-discrimiation laws to include sexual orientation. So do his would-be Democratic opponents, Secretary of State Cathy Cox and Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, according to their campaigns. Chuck Bowen, executive director of Georgia Equality, the state's largest gay rights group, said there is a split in the gay community between those who want to shoot for the full equality that same-sex marriage would signal and those who want to move forward in a more incremental fashion. "(Same-sex) marriage is this scary, boogeyman to some people," Bowen said. "It's caused us to lose a lot of support from people who might be sympathetic and supportive on other issues." Bowen said the gay community saw some progress this year when the state Senate passed hate crimes legislation that included sexual orientation. But the bill was defeated in the House. For the most part, the group has been working on a local level on issues unrelated to marriage. Athens-Clarke County voted just last week to amend its employee non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. It joins 10 other localities - including the cities of Atlanta and Savannah - that have already adopted the change. And Bowen said in Georgia, the private sector has been leading the way, with many of the state's major employers offering domestic partner benefits including Delta, BellSouth, Coca-Cola, Home Depot and Cox Communications. Some who oppose same-sex marriage argue that in pushing smaller initiatives the gay community is simply trying to lay the groundwork to eventually recognize same-sex marriage. "I definitely believe that with the smaller incremental steps the ultimate goal is to sanction a major union between two men and two women," said Sadie Fields, state chairman of Georgia's chapter of the Christian Coalition. In Georgia, the marriage issue is poised to take center stage again this summer. The state's highest court is set to hear arguments June 27 on a Fulton County Superior Court judge's decision to toss out the constitutional ban on same sex marriages that was approved by voters in 2004. Judge Constance Russell did not touch on the merits of same-sex marriage in her ruling but said the ballot measure - which 76 percent of voters supported - violated the state's single-subject ballot rule. If the Georgia Supreme Court fails to rule by Aug. 7 or doesn't reverse Russell's decision, Perdue has vowed to call a special session of the state Legislature to get the issue back on the ballot for the November election. Georgia still has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996. Bowen said he is unaware of any gay or lesbian couples who have tried to marry in Georgia in recent years. "It's illegal," he said. Philip Rafshoon, owner the Outwrite Books, a gay and lesbian-themed bookstore in Atlanta, said the renewed debate about same-sex marriage has given his community a forum to talk about their lives. "People see that we're their neighbors. We're not scary. We live next door," Rafshoon said. But conservatives, emboldened by the support the same-sex marriage amendment received at the polls, may have their eyes on a new prize: adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Rumors were rampant early this year that the GOP leaders in the state Legislature would this year push through a ban on gay adoptions. It didn't happen. But state Sen. Nancy Schaefer, a strong supporter of the ban on same-sex marriage, said stay tuned. "It may be this coming year," she said. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Gay Singer Kevin Aviance Beaten In NYC Hate Crime
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 11, 2006 - 9:00 am ET Updated 11:00 am ET (New York City) Openly gay singer Kevin Aviance was listed in stable condition Sunday at New York's Beth Israel Hospital following what police are calling a vicious homophobic attack Saturday in the East Village. Four men were later arrested on charges of assault as a hate crime. At least two others remain at large. Aviance, 38, whose songs have topped the Billboard dance chart, was attacked as he walked home from the Phoenix where he had met friends for a drink. Police said that the attackers yelled anti-gay slurs as they beat him. Aviance managed to walk the short distance to hospital. He underwent surgery for a broken jaw on Saturday. His his publicist, Len Evans, said that Aviance's jaw is wired shut and he will not be able to perform in the upcoming gay-pride parade. Evans said that while Aviance was being attacked people just passed by ignoring the bashing. Aviance performs in drag but Evans said he was ''dressed like a boy'' when he was attacked. Aviance's song ''Alive'' hit the top of the chart in 2002. Other popular songs by the singer have included ''Give It Up,'' released in 2004, and ''Din Da Da,'' which topped the Billboard dance chart in 1997. Police identified the four men arrested as Jarell Sears and Akino George, both 20; Gregory Archie, 18; and Gerard Johnson, 16. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
California Court Lays Ground Rules For Co-Parenting
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 11, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (San Francisco, California) A California appeals court has set out the guidelines under which a non-biological parent can be considered a co-parent. The case involved a lesbian couple who had split up with one of the women refusing to allow her ex-partner to have visitation rights to the child they raised. The other woman went to court, under a landmark ruling last year by the California Supreme Court that said partners have equal rights and responsibilities in raising and caring for the children. The high court however, in ruling in three separate co-parenting cases, did not establish a set of rules laying out the criteria for what constituted co-parenting. On Friday, in a separate case, the appeals court did just that. Writing for the court, in a 3-0 ruling, Justice Linda Gemello said that a non biological mother, to have co-parent rights, must have taken part in the decision for the biological mother to conceive, and that she must have been involved in the raising of the child, must have treated the child as her own and must have accepted both the rights and the responsibilities of parenthood. The ruling in the case, known as Charisma R. v. Kristina S. will make it easier for other women to gain access to their children when a relationship breaks up the National Center for Lesbian Rights said. Charisma and Kristina were in a committed relationship for several years and had a child together using an anonymous sperm donor. Shortly after the child was born, Kristina abruptly left the couple’s home and took their daughter with her. Over the course of three years, Kristina allowed Charisma to see their daughter only twice. With the help of the NCLR Charisma filed a petition asking the court to rule that she is a legal parent in May, 2004. The trial court dismissed her action, holding that only people who have a biological or marital connection to a child can be legal parents. In its decision Friday, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, citing last year's California Supreme Court ruling. It was the first appellate decision to apply the high court’s 2005 decision. “I am delighted by the court’s decision,” said Deborah H. Wald, chairperson of the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ National Family Law Advisory Committee. Wald argued the case for Charisma on behalf of NCLR before the appeals court. “Since before the child was born, Charisma has done everything in her power to live up to her responsibilities as a parent. She deserves the opportunity to maintain a relationship with her daughter. As the Court of Appeal recognized, when two people use assisted reproduction to have a child together, the law should recognize both partners as legal parents.” The birth mother was represented by Liberty Counsel, a conservative group fighting LGBT issues across the country. Attorney, Rena Lindevaldsen said the ruling by the state Supreme Court was unconstitutional and it may seek redress from the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court twice this year has declined to hear gay parenting cases. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Pa. joins rush to ban same-sex marriages
Voters in 20 states have OK'd prohibitions Sunday, June 11, 2006 BY JAN MURPHYOf The Patriot-News Opponents of same-sex marriage scored two victories nationally last week, and they hope to build on that momentum this week when a Pennsylvania Senate committee takes up the issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled on Tuesday to consider a marriage definition amendment bill that last week passed the state House, 136-61. The bill aims to strengthen the 10-year-old law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Supporters said the constitutional amendment is needed to prevent judges from overturning the state law banning gay marriage, as has occurred in other states. "You can't allow activist judges to redefine what marriage is," said Rep. Thomas Yewcic, D-Cambria. Last week, Alabama became the 20th state where voters approved banning same-sex marriage. Voters in as many as seven states could vote this fall on amending their state constitutions to ban gay marriage. However, an effort in the U.S. Senate to begin the process of adding it to the U.S. Constitution failed. Along with giving voters the chance to decide whether to ban gay marriages, the House bill would add a clause to the state constitution prohibiting legal recognition of a marriagelike relationship. Supporters said this is necessary to prevent civil unions, but opponents said it could be interpreted to interfere with hospital visitations, survivor benefits and other rights of both gay and unmarried heterosexual couples. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, said he would support the measure. He said he expects the Senate to take it up before the end of the month, which keeps it on track to be considered for a second time in the next legislative session. Senate Republican leadership sources said they expect the bill will pass the chamber if put to a vote. Among members of the midstate delegation reached, Sens. David "Chip" Brightbill, R-Lebanon, Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin County, and Jake Corman, R-Centre, said they support banning same-sex marriage. "A substantial majority of Pennsylvanians and an even larger majority of people in my district believe as I do that marriage has been and always should be between one man and one woman," Piccola said. Sen. Patricia Vance, R-Cumberland, said she believes that as well, but the wording of the House-passed bill gives her pause. "I have no desire to hurt people who are different than me," she said, which she fears might be the effect of the language banning legal recognition of marriagelike relationships. She said she might propose amending the bill to drop that part, as Rep. Jerry Nailor, R-Mechanicsburg, unsuccessfully tried to do during the House debate. If a similar effort failed in the Senate, Vance said she is unsure how she will vote. Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union said he is perplexed by the sudden push for this amendment. "Both supporters and opponents recognize this as mere political pandering," he said. Sen. Connie Williams, D-Montgomery, an amendment opponent, agreed. "All that this current debate ... serves to do is to create another wedge issue that will be used by the extreme right wing, who want to get a question on the ballot in the hopes of bringing out a targeted voter population in 2002," she said in a statement. Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, also opposes the amendment. His spokesman, Gary Tuma, said Fumo was "personally ashamed" and saddened by the House debate on the bill, saying it sounded like "something out of the Middle Ages." "He finds it hard to believe there is that much hatred and willingness to discriminate against any group in Pennsylvania," Tuma said. "He was shocked by the comments about activist judges. If it weren't for activist judges, we would still have segregated schools." Opponents said the bill is a diversion from the Legislature's failure to address property taxes and other issues. They said it will hurt Pennsylvania's ability to attract companies that offer domestic-partner benefits. They said it seeks to insert discriminatory language in the constitution. A coalition of faith leaders argued it would undercut moral authority of religions. Supporters, however, said those arguments don't hold water. Rather than hurt Pennsylvania's competitiveness, it will show Pennsylvania wants to protect the traditional family and children and views that as the core institution on which a free society is built, they said. Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania described the situation created by Massachusetts' 2004 legalization of gay marriage as "outrageous." Lawmakers in that state were ordered by a court to pass a gay marriage law, she said. "Birth certificates no longer say mother and father. They say Parent A and Parent B. Marriage certificates say Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 instead of husband and wife," she said. Gramley said Pennsylvanians should be given the chance to decide the issue, not judges. While some have political motivations for wanting to wait for that to happen until 2008, she said she isn't one of them. "The sooner the better, if you ask me," she said. What do you think?
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Spanish Judge Faces Prosecution For Refusing To Perform Gay Marriages
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 9, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Madrid) A judge in the southern town of Alicante who was censured last year for refusing to perform same-sex marriages could be prosecuted after ignoring a directive from Spain's highest court that she is obligated to conduct and register the weddings. Judge Laura Alabau refused to permit the marriage of a couple who reside outside the country - claiming that she is not required to perform marriages of couples if those marriages would be illegal in their home country. It is the third time Alabau has refused to conduct a same-sex marriage. Last year the Constitutional Court rejected an appeal of Spain's marriage equality law by Alabau and another judge. In its ruling the court said that under Spanish law judges cannot refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples. In the most recent case Alabau's refusal has been referred back to the court. Although the Constitutional Court could censure her, that could be the least of her problems. Earlier this year she was accused by Valencia's assistant prosecutor, Jose Maria Lopez Coig, of causing unnecessary delays in performing same-sex marriages. In a terse letter to the Valencia Supreme Court Alabau demanded that Lopez Coig retract his criticism accusing him of becoming "a shameful appendage of the same government." The letter also accused him of persecuting her with the government's "propaganda machine, by hounding those who impart a justice which may not be to the liking of those who control all other areas of the State." The court forwarded a copy of the letter to the government in Madrid. The Ministry of Justice has asked the General Council for Judicial Power if Alabau should be prosecuted for making "serious accusations’ against the government. If she is convicted Alabau could face a hefty fine or be removed from office. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Georgia Amendment Not Illegal State Argues
by The Associated Press June 9, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Atlanta, Georgia) The ballot measure approved by voters banning same sex marriage in Georgia does not violate the state's constitution, state lawyers argued in a brief filed Friday with the Georgia Supreme Court. In May, Superior Court Judge Constance Russell, of Fulton County, tossed out the constitutional amendment, which 76 percent of voters had approved in 2004. She did not rule on issues related to gay marriage, but held instead that the measure violated the single-subject rule mandated by the state Constitution by asking voters to consider both same-sex marriage and civil unions. The state argued that "to constitute a plurality of subject matter, an Act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any logical connection with or relation to each other." "The parts of the amendment are germane to one another and their common purpose of prohibiting same sex marriages in Georgia," said the brief filed by the state Attorney General's Office. Georgia still has a law on the books which makes same-sex marriage illegal. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Canadian Gays Mark 3rd Anniversary Of Same-Sex Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 9, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET (Toronto, Ontario) Dozens of same-sex couples celebrated in front of Toronto City Hall on Friday, marking the third anniversary of the landmark court ruling that struck down Canada's ban on gay marriage. On hand to mark the occasion was federal New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, a former Toronto city council member. On June 10, 2003 the Ontario Court of Appeals - the highest court in the province - ruled that prohibiting gay marriage was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution. The ruling allowed same-sex couples to immediately receive marriage licenses and wed. "The existing common law definition of marriage violates the couples' equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under [the charter]," the 61-page written ruling said. Courts in other provinces followed and the then Liberal federal government said it would not appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead it brought in legislation to permit same-sex marriage in all regions of the country. The law was passed last year. Since the beginning of the toppling of the prohibition on same-sex marriage some 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have wed across the country. The most weddings were in Ontario where nearly 5,800 couples have tied the knot. British Columbia was next with 3,100. In Nunavut, in the Eastern Arctic one same-sex couple wed. "Joyce and I were married on June 13, 2003," said Alison Kemper, the director of the gay community center in Toronto and the wife of Joyce Barnett. Next Tuesday they will celebrate their third anniversary and Kemper said that marriage was important not only for her and her wife but for their children. "I'm so happy that my parents got married because it means that my family is indeed a real family, said Robbie Barnett-Kemper the couple's 14 year old son. But if Canada's new Conservative government gets its way the march to the altar for same-sex couples will end. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to re-open the marriage issue this fall. Earlier this month he said that MPs will be asked to debate the issue. If there is support in Parliament the government would bring in a repeal bill. The chances of that are slim. All three opposition parties are opposed to re-opening the issue. The public also is uneasy with it. Recent polls show that most Canadians have grown comfortable with same-sex marriage. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Dropping Case Won't Mean Gay Fostering Missouri Agency Warns
by The Associated Press June 9, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Jefferson City, Missouri) Gay rights and children's advocates in Missouri are praising the attorney general's decision to drop a legal fight over gay foster parents, but the state agency said the battle isn't over. Attorney General Jay Nixon on Thursday officially dropped the state's appeal of a judge's decision that a lesbian was wrongly denied the opportunity to become a foster parent. "Missouri can no longer use an unconstitutional law to discriminate against us," said Julie Brueggemann, executive director of PROMO, a gay rights group. "I am hopeful that the Missouri Department of Social Services will change their discriminatory policy. There's no longer any reason to have that policy."Department spokeswoman Deborah Scott said if the appeal is over, despite the agency's objections, Lisa Johnston could continue the process of becoming a foster parent. But she said the agency isn't moving to allow other gay people to be foster parents.Rather, she said, the agency is putting in writing many aspects of its policy on foster parent licensing, including how to treat gay applicants. She wouldn't say whether the new rules would include a ban on gay foster parents.Jackson County Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled in February that the department improperly denied Johnston's application to become a foster parent because she is a lesbian and ordered the agency to resume training and grant Johnston's license if she meets other requirements. The Missouri Supreme Court had placed the decision on hold while the appeal was being pursued.The Department of Social Services primarily cited a state law banning same-sex sexual contact as a reason for denying the license, saying as a result Johnston was not of "reputable character" as state rules require of foster parents.The judge said the law was unenforceable in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking a similar Texas law in 2003. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Showdown Looms For Australian Civil Unions
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 9, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Canberra) The Australian Capital Territory thumbed its nose Friday at the federal government and moved up the date when same-sex couples can have civil unions. The move threatens a court and possible constitutional court challenge that could be as rough and tumble as Australian Rules Football. Same-sex couples now will be able to have civil unions as of June 26, a month earlier than first planned and long before the federal government of Prime Minister John Howard can bring in legislation to void the ACT law. The ACT government also has appealed to the Governor General to disallow Howard's bill when it passes Parliament. Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock issued a warning Friday that civil unions performed before the legislation is passed will be voided. That prompted ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell to announce the civil union law will be open to any same-sex couple in the country. "In the same way that if you have a child born in another state . . . in the same way if you die in another state, your death is registered there. The same thing would happen in relation to civil unions," Corbell said. Despite Ruddock's threat gay and lesbian couples from across Australia are planning to rush to Canberra on June 26 to tie the knot. Corbell said that officiants will be licensed by June 26 and predicted there will be an onslaught of couples seeking to enter into civil unions. The ACT law is based on Britain's civil partnerships and offers all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without using the term. Prime Minister Howard's government believes civil unions violate the federal law banning same-sex marriage that his government enacted in 2004. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Foes Secretly Hoping For Gay Win In State Courts
by Geoff Mulvihill, Associated Press June 9, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (New York City) After being rebuffed in the U.S. Senate, some opponents of gay marriage think losing a court case might help their case to ban same-sex unions across the country. High courts in New Jersey, New York and Washington state are deliberating cases in which gay and lesbian couples argue their state constitutions give them the right to marry. Similar lawsuits are working their way through the court systems in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland."If any of those courts mandate genderless marriage, you're going to have folks on the other side saying, 'This makes the marriage issue serious business,"' said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, an Orem, Utah-based group that opposes gay marriage.Since 1999, three state high courts - in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont - have ruled that their states should treat same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples.Each ruling was followed by either a backlash or a compromise.In Hawaii, the state Constitution was quickly amended to allow lawmakers to ban gay marriage, which they did.In Vermont, lawmakers created civil unions, which give same-sex couples nearly all the rights of married couples.Massachusetts is the only state where there are state-recognized same-sex marriages. But ever since the state Supreme Judicial Court said in 2003 that they must be recognized, there's been a major push for a state constitutional amendment to ban them.The Massachusetts ruling was also seen as a major factor that galvanized opponents of gay marriage in the 11 states that passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in 2004.If more judges rule the way the Massachusetts court did, there could be a wider backlash against judges defining marriage, say some conservative activists."You lose a battle here, you lose a battle there," said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. "It helps to educate the public and motivate the constituency."And that, he said, might pressure Congress to move ahead with a federal amendment banning gay marriage. While 19 state constitutions have been so amended, federal lawmakers in Washington have been reluctant to amend the federal Constitution. On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted 49-48 in favor of an amendment _ 18 votes short of enough to pass.The Marriage Law Foundation's Stewart said seeing a second state allow same-sex unions would be more significant than Massachusetts _ and a bigger unifying force for conservatives.That's because other states do not have laws like one in Massachusetts that effectively prevents out-of-state same-sex couples from being married there. It's expected that if another state allowed same-sex marriages, gay and lesbian couples would flock there to exchange vows, then return to their home states to mount legal challenges to try to have their marriages recognized.Gay rights leaders say they're prepared for strong efforts to undo any gains they make in state courts.In New Jersey, Steven Goldstein of the gay-rights organization Garden State Equality, said that if state's high court allows gay marriage, he's prepared for a political fight over a state constitutional amendment seeking to trump the ruling.National gay-rights groups also are bracing for backlashes that may come if they succeed in state courts."We have to fight to hold the victories we secure," said Kate Kendell, director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights. "That is the history of every civil rights struggle."Though it may galvanize opponents if any additional states allow gay marriage, Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, a conservative lobbying group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., said he does not want to see any states allow same-sex unions.But Hausknecht also said the courts he worries most about are not the state courts, but federal courts such as those in Nebraska and Georgia that have struck down those states' anti-gay marriage amendments."The impact of federal decisions go beyond just the state where the federal court sits. We're definitely gravely concerned about federal judges redefining marriage," he said. "The definition of marriage should be left to the citizens of the country." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Delay in lesbian wedding decision
A High Court judge has delayed his decision in a ground-breaking legal challenge brought by a lesbian couple who want their marriage recognised. After three days in court, Sir Mark Potter reserved judgement in the case brought by North Yorkshire couple Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson. The President of the Family Division said he needed more time to consider his ruling. The couple, who married in Canada, want their union given full UK legal status. Invalid union The University of York and Loughborough University academics were declared "wife and wife" in a 2003 ceremony in Vancouver. Their union is not recognised as a marriage under current UK laws which reject the validity of same-sex marriages. The 2004 Civil Partnership Act allows same-sex couples to register their partnership and receive many of the legal benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals, but the pair have argued this is not good enough. On the final day of the hearing, the legal team representing the Lord Chancellor expressed its opposition to the couple's plea and said the case was misconceived. 'No discrimination' Barrister Helen Mountfield, for the Lord Chancellor, said the Civil Partnership Act conveyed a high degree of "legal recognition" to same sex partners. She said there was "no positive obligation" on a state to recognise a specific "form of relationship". Civil partners are now subject to "no less favourable treatment" than married couples, since the benefits traditionally linked to marriage were transferable, said Miss Mountfield. As a result, the couple could not claim to be the victims of state discrimination, she said. What do you think?
Layton celebrates third anniversary of gay marriage in Canada
Carlye Malchuk Canadian Press Saturday, June 10, 2006 TORONTO (CP) - Federal New Democrat Leader Jack Layton joined gay rights activists Friday in marking the third anniversary of same-sex marriage in Canada, just one week after Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to revisit the divisive debate this fall. Layton joined representatives from the lobby group Canadians for Equal Marriage as well as federal NDP MP Olivia Chow and Liberal MP Belinda Stronach at Toronto's City Hall to celebrate the milestone. "You can never take human rights for granted - once they've been achieved they have to be fought for over and over again," Layton said. "To now be celebrating the third anniversary of that historic moment . . .is very exciting to me." Saturday marks the anniversary of an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that deemed it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to wed. After the 2003 ruling, other provinces and territories followed suit. In late June of last year, the House of Commons passed bill C-38, which changed the definition of civil marriage to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" - allowing same-sex couples to wed. Harper said last week he is keeping his campaign promise to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether the issue should be revisited. Joanne McGarry, executive director of the Catholic Civil Rights League, said she hopes at the very least Conservative MP's will support the free vote, if for no other reason than to keep an election promise. McGarry said although the majority of Canadians support equal treatment for all citizens, her group feels "they did not . . . want marriage redefined." But Toronto city councillor Kyle Rae said those who want to take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry are in the minority. "It's disconcerting that equality rights or human rights are a Ping-Pong ball for the extreme right," said Rae, who married his partner in 2003 - 10 days after the Ontario ruling came down. Laurie Arron, national coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, said he doesn't feel Harper could hope to repeal the existing law without creating a mess in Canadian courts. "There's been no harm done to anybody by allowing same-sex couples to marry," Arron said. "Three years on, the equal marriage ship has sailed." In January, an open letter to Harper, then leader of the Opposition, from 104 university law professors stated the law Harper intended to pass would be "clearly unconstitutional." The letter continued to state that any law taking away the right for gay couples to marry would result in "legal confusion, a lack of uniformity, and unnecessary, protracted and costly litigation." Stronach said gay marriage rights are about Canada being a country of respect, not just tolerance. "This is really about the kind of country we want to have," she said. Layton called it "unfortunate" that the issue could be reopened, but pledged to battle to keep gay marriage legal. If the prime minister is intent on putting the possibility of debate up to a free vote, it should be done immediately, Arron said. For Harper to "go after" gay Canadians like this and then keep them in a state of uncertainty for months is unfair, he said. "To have our rights and our lives debated is very difficult," Arron said. Canadians for Equal Marriage says that since the Ontario ruling, over 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have legally wed across the country. What do you think?
Navy to discharge marcher in wedding march
The Navy is kicking out a female non-commissioned officer who took part in a New York City rally for marriage equality last weekend, after she was heard on a local radio station talking about her lesbian lover. Navy Petty Officer Rhonda Davis was in uniform when she gave the interview to 1010WINS on June 3, as she marched across the Brooklyn Bridge with hundreds of others supporting same-sex marriage.She said now she is losing her job because her superiors heard the broadcast. Navy spokesman Jeff Nichols confirmed that discharge proceedings are underway and said Davis’s broadcast comments violated the military's "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.Davis, a 10-year Navy veteran and currently serving as a journalist first class, said she’s hoping to get an honorable, not a dishonorable, discharge. She said Saturday’s rally was the first time she had marched in support of gay rights—and that even though she's not happy about losing her job, she has no regrets about speaking out because she believes strongly in the fight to legalize same-sex marriage. (Sirius OutQ News) What do you think?
Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide With Religious Liberty?
June 10, 2006 Beliefs New York Times By PETER STEINFELS Is same-sex marriage on a collision course with religious liberty? It wasn't surprising that before the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage died in the Senate this week, several senators supporting it raised that danger. But when highly respected legal experts on civil liberties, including ones favoring same-sex marriage, raise the same possibility, their concerns cannot be dismissed as partisan debating points. Marc D. Stern, whose many years handling religious freedom cases for the American Jewish Congress have made him an expert in the area, can hardly be identified as a conservative agitator. Yet he firmly believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty "inevitable." "No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have "substantial impact." He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors. One example, which he did not anticipate when first undertaking his analysis, was the Boston Catholic Charities' decision to withdraw from providing adoption services because the state license required placing children with gay married couples on the same basis as heterosexual married couples. Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage, agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed. Mr. Stern and Professor Feldblum were among the First Amendment scholars participating in a conference last December sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The conference was first widely reported in a May 15 cover article by Maggie Gallagher in The Weekly Standard. Those conservative auspices could also feed the impression that these constitutional arguments were only a scare tactic by opponents of same-sex marriage. The Becket papers themselves, however, do not confirm that impression. They are serious legal analyses. And, though virtually all the writers see same-sex marriage creating potential conflicts with the religious liberty of institutions and individuals rejecting such marriages on religious grounds, the writers by no means agree on how serious those conflicts are or how they might be resolved. One of Ms. Gallagher's most interesting observations, in fact, is that the legal scholars opposed to same-sex marriage seemed more sanguine about overcoming potential conflicts than those, like Professor Feldblum or Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School, who favor same-sex marriage, or those, like Mr. Stern, who simply feel that the culture is moving almost inexorably in that direction. Needless to say, the legal arguments are intricate; that, after all, seems to be the definition of legal arguments. The lawyers are back and forth on whether continuing opposition to same-sex marriage, if it were recognized, might put a religiously affiliated institution at risk of losing its tax-exempt status, as Bob Jones University did for prohibiting interracial dating and marriage on the grounds that they were unbiblical. Asked by a reporter for The Chicago Tribune whether a conservative Christian college would risk its tax-exempt status by refusing to admit a legally married gay couple to married-student housing, Cass Sunstein, a constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School who had not been at the Becket conference, answered, "Sure — and if pigs had wings, they would fly." He dismissed the idea as a scenario "generated by advocacy groups trying to scare people." But Professor Sunstein, as it happened, had been asked only about this specific question and not the whole range of the Becket papers' arguments, which he had not read. After quickly reading Professor Feldblum's paper and dipping into Mr. Stern's, he granted that they pointed to conflicts that were "real and serious." Besides possible, even if remote, risks regarding tax exemption, the scholars' papers noted laws forbidding discrimination in hiring or toleration of a hostile workplace environment. They noted antidiscrimination provisions in many local or state laws licensing commercial enterprises and professional activities, as well as in the ethics codes of professional associations that have a role in accrediting professional schools, licensing professionals or resolving civil suits. And of course they noted the civil rights laws, federal, state and local, barring discrimination in places of public accommodation, housing and education. Many of these laws contain exemptions for religious bodies or even for the personal moral beliefs of some professionals like doctors. A number of such exemptions arose in the wake of the legalization of abortion, and one paper at the Becket conference, by Robin Fretwell Williams, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, reviews the lessons they might have for the legalization of same-sex marriage. But Ms. Wilson and Mr. Stern make clear that such religious exemptions are not only under challenge by reproductive rights advocates in several states but also follow, in Mr. Stern's phrase, "a crazy quilt pattern," exempting different kinds of religious institutions from the provisions of different laws regarding different sorts of actions in different localities. After one pushes through these legal thickets do any clear conclusions emerge? For Professor Sunstein, same-sex marriage does not raise qualitatively new issues so much as intensify existing tensions "between antidiscrimination norms and deeply held religious convictions." For Professor Feldblum, the only honest position is to admit that "we are in a zero-sum game in terms of moral values." In her view, the dignity and equality of gay people should almost always outweigh considerations of religious freedom, though she believes that such freedom might weigh more heavily for religious institutions "geared just towards members of the faith" as opposed to those that interact broadly with the general public. For Mr. Stern, "this is going to be a train wreck" — one that he believes can be avoided only if advocates on both sides renounce what he called "a winner take all" attitude. And for just about anyone with political savvy, one conclusion is that a long series of court battles regarding same-sex marriage and religious freedom could be in the offing, with ample room, given the multiplicity of statutes and complexity of precedents, for unpredictable, inconsistent and controversial rulings. Whatever the ultimate impact on religious freedom, then, won't the first great impact, as the debate in Congress showed, be on the political climate? "No question," Professor Sunstein said. What do you think?
Friday, June 09, 2006
Scottish Church Endorses Gay Co-Parenting
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 8, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Edinburgh) Scotland's largest Protestant denomination has endorsed a plan to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The Scottish government is preparing to vote on a bill to permit gay couples to be co-parents. The measure is identical to a law passed in England last year. It allows same-sex partners to adopt each other's children. It also permits both partners to adopt children through an agency or become co-parents through in-vitro fertilization. And, it allows same-sex couples to jointly be foster parents. The Catholic Church in Scotland and evangelical churches are opposed to the legislation. They claim that the measure will undermine traditional marriage. In announcing its support for the bill the Church of Scotland acknowledged the concerns of the other denominations but said that the legislation would benefit children who might otherwise grow up in orphanages or foster homes. Appearing before a parliamentary committee studying the proposed legislation Morag Mylne of the Church's council on society said that the denomination continues to believe that the stability and care children needed was "best provided in the context of marriage". But she said that given the need for more adoptive parents and the fact children were already being adopted by individuals in gay or unmarried relationships, "we can see some force in giving legal recognition to the realities of these situations". Last month the Church put off making a final decision on a proposal to bless same-sex unions in a contentious meeting of its General Assembly. The issue will return to the Assembly for a final decision next year. The Church of Scotland is the country's national church. If it decides to allow the blessings church-wide it would make it the first major denomination in the United Kingdom to bless gay unions. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Missouri AG To Drop Lesbian Foster Parent Appeal
by The Associated Press June 8, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Kansas City, Missouri) Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said that the state plans to drop its legal challenge to a Kansas City lesbian's efforts to become a foster parent because a law signed this week by Gov. Matt Blunt makes the appeal impossible. Nixon cited a bill Blunt signed that toughens penalties against sexual predators. The bill, signed Monday, also includes language that deletes a long-standing state law banning same-sex sexual contact, one of the key arguments Missouri raised to deny Kansas City resident Lisa Johnston a license to raise a foster child. A spokesman for Blunt said the governor strongly disagreed with what he called Nixon's "outrageous" plan to drop Missouri's appeal of a February ruling against the state. "We don't believe placing a child with homosexual parents will provide an appropriate environment for foster children," spokesman Spence Jackson told The Kansas City Star for a story Thursday. "If (Nixon) moves forward with his plans to drop this case, he is doing so without the consent of his client." Both men are running for governor in 2008, and exchanges between Nixon, a Democrat, and Blunt, a Republican, have become increasingly pointed in recent months. Jackson said Blunt supports the appeal, which a Nixon spokesman said would now be legally invalid. "The governor's signature took away the last argument of the state in this case," said Nixon spokesman Scott Holste. Given the governor's signature, he added, "we are going to be dismissing the appeal." The issue of same-sex foster parents has ignited Missouri courts for months. In 2003, Johnston, 40, applied to be a foster parent to a child she hoped to raise with her partner, Dawn Roginski. She had started her training when her application was rejected under what the American Civil Liberties Union said was an unwritten policy against allowing gays and lesbians to become foster parents. Johnston sued on grounds that being a lesbian wasn't enough for the state to deny her a license. The Department of Social Services argued that a child raised by a same-sex couple might face social disapproval and that Johnston was not of "reputable character" stemming from the state's ban on same-sex sodomy. ACLU attorneys said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas law against sodomy in private settings, invalidated Missouri's law. In February, a Jackson County Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff agreed, ruling that Missouri could not deny a lesbian a foster parent license. Midkiff ordered the agency to resume training for the couple and to grant Johnston, who has a bachelor's degree in human development and family with special emphasis on child development, a license if she passed. Social Services decided to appeal, and Johnston's application to become a foster parent was put on hold while each side prepared briefs for the Missouri Supreme Court. In the meantime, the department's policy to deny foster-parent licenses to same-sex couples remains in effect, said Deborah Scott, a department spokeswoman. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Gay Rights Takes To Radio Airwaves
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 8, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Washington) The nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization is launching a weekly radio show that will mix talk with celebrity news and feature a phone-in segment. The show will be hosted by Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and heard on XM Satellite Radio. "The Agenda with Joe Solmonese" will premiere on Monday, July 17, on XM LIVE (XM channel 200) from 6 - 8 pm. There will be additional encore broadcasts airing throughout the week. "This is a unique opportunity to engage millions of Americans in a real conversation about what it means to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender today," said Solmonese. "Our goal has always been to engage more Americans in a dialogue about fairness and equality, and XM's more than 6.5 million subscribers give us an incredible reach into rural as well as urban American homes and cars." "The Agenda" will mix current events with lifestyle topics and feature audience interaction through live listener calls. Solmonese said that he's working on getting guests, like Cyndi Lauper, George Takei and political leaders like Sens. Russ Feingold and. Lincoln Chafee. He also plans on bringing on religious leaders like Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and national and local community leaders "who are fighting for equality on the front lines." The program will be broadcast live from XM's Washington, D.C., studios. Solmonese will be joined each week by "The Agenda" executive producer Mary Breslauer of Boston, a former radio talk show host, former HRC board member and longtime GLBT activist. Coinciding with the Gay Games in Chicago, the debut episode of "The Agenda" will feature live coverage of the games, as well as a look at being GLBT in the Windy City. "Joe Solmonese is a remarkably articulate and authentic voice for our community. Joe's new show feeds an audience that craves more voices, more entertainment and more diversity of programming. And that's the perfect recipe for success in entertainment." said Lisa Sherman, General Manager of Logo, the nation's leading LGBT cable channel and entertainment source from MTV Networks. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Westchester NY To Recognize Gay Marriages
by The Associated Press June 8, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (New York City) Westchester County has become the first county in the state to recognize gay marriages.County Executive Andrew Spano issued an executive order to do it.Spano read the order last night at a meeting of gay groups and received a standing ovation.The effect of the order is to give married gay couples the same county privileges as heterosexual couples, such as the right to buy family passes to county parks and the right to seek emergency housing as a family.It does not require towns and villages within the county to recognize the marriages and it does not help same-sex couples get state or federal privileges.The order applies only to couples who were married in a state or country where gay marriages are legally performed.Massachusetts is the only such state; Canada, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands have legalized same-sex marriages. In his order, Spano said the New York case law "requires the recognition of a valid marriage entered into outside the State, regardless of whether the union would be permitted under New York law." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Washington Gay Rights Law Takes Effect
by The Associated Press June 8, 2006 - 11:00 am ET (Olympia, Washington) A statewide gay civil rights law has taken effect after foes of the measure failed to submit enough voter signatures to force a public vote this fall.The measure adds “sexual orientation” to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment, insurance and credit. It makes Washington the 17th state with laws protecting gays and lesbians, and the seventh to protect transgender people.Gay rights supporters said discrimination will not end with this new law.“But it sends a very strong message that discrimination against gay people is wrong and illegal” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C. “And it sends a strong message to potential victims that you don’t have to take it any more.”Opponents of the law argue that it gives gays and lesbians preferential treatment, encourages quotas, and could lead to same-sex marriage — an issue the state Supreme Court is expected to rule on any week now.“This is a flagrant attempt to force values upon others,” said Rick Forcier, state director of the Christian Coalition.Referendum 65 would have asked voters whether they wanted to keep the anti-discrimination law passed this year by the Legislature.But referendum supporters fell short of the number of signatures they needed to make it to the ballot. Initiative activist Tim Eyman arrived at the state elections division just minutes before closing time Tuesday and announced he and allies had collected 105,103 signatures — fewer than the 112,440 minimum required and considerably less than the 130,000 that is suggested in order to cover duplicate or invalid signatures.“There is a God,” House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, said when she heard of that development.State Rep. Ed Murray, one of four openly gay state lawmakers and prime sponsor of the legislation, said he too was relieved.“This means people do not believe in discrimination,” he said. “They may not feel good about gay and lesbian people, but they don’t like discrimination.”Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network, said that the conservative religious community would still try to repeal the law, but was discussing what options were available, including a possible initiative to the Legislature next legislative session. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
GOP still plans to make issue of gay marriage
GOP still plans to make issue of gay marriage By Andrea Stone, USA TODAYThu Jun 8, 7:12 AM ET Conservatives had counted on the Senate's vote Wednesday on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to give them a boost, but political analysts say it's unclear whether the tally will add votes for Republicans this fall. Despite predictions by Sen. Wayne Allard (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., the amendment's chief sponsor, that the measure would garner 52 votes, it fell short of that and gained just one more supporter than in 2004, the last time it came up. The amendment failed on a 49-48 procedural vote, far short of the 60 needed to move ahead with an up-or-down vote on the issue or the 67 needed to pass a constitutional amendment. "It's questionable whether the vote will have much effect" in November, said John Pitney, a political scientist at California's Claremont McKenna College. He cited a March survey by the Pew Research Center that showed opposition to legalizing gay marriage has dropped from 63% in 2004 to 51% now. Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution political analyst, predicts the election impact will be "a wash. I can't believe (conservative) voters will be mobilized to vote by a loss of this magnitude." The Senate acted a day after Alabama voters made their state the 20th to amend its constitution to ban gay marriage. President Bush also made two speeches on the issue in recent days, saying marriage should not be defined by judges. Republicans such as Rep. Katherine Harris (news, bio, voting record), who is running for the Senate in Florida, have run ads promising to "defend traditional marriage." In Ohio, GOP incumbent Mike DeWine has contrasted his support for a federal amendment to his challenger's opposition. DeWine's support shows he "represents the mainstream values" of his constituents, says Ohio Republican Party spokesman John McClelland. Ohio was one of 11 states that changed their constitutions in 2004 to ban gay marriage. Joanna Kuebler, a spokeswoman for Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown, a House member who opposes the ban, notes DeWine didn't back the state initiative and has "had an election-year conversion." Montana Republican Conrad Burns' campaign didn't even wait until the Senate voted to send an e-mail. "How would newly minted Democrat nominee Jon Tester vote?" it asked. "Would he stand with Montana, which overwhelmingly defended traditional marriage in 2004?" Tester's office did not return calls seeking comment. Democrats such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois noted that marriage is a state matter. They said they found it ironic that Republicans, usually staunch champions of states' rights, wanted the federal government to intervene. The House, which also fell short of the votes needed to approve an amendment in 2004, is expected to debate the issue next month. "We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan. Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said the vote shows the issue "does not have traction with anyone but the right-wing base." Democrats suggested that the GOP's focus on the issue could backfire by angering voters across the political spectrum who think lawmakers should focus on the Iraq war and other issues. "They're in trouble," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "They're going with last year's pitching." What do you think?
GOP still plans to make issue of gay marriage
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAYThu Jun 8, 7:12 AM ET Conservatives had counted on the Senate's vote Wednesday on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to give them a boost, but political analysts say it's unclear whether the tally will add votes for Republicans this fall. Despite predictions by Sen. Wayne Allard (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., the amendment's chief sponsor, that the measure would garner 52 votes, it fell short of that and gained just one more supporter than in 2004, the last time it came up. The amendment failed on a 49-48 procedural vote, far short of the 60 needed to move ahead with an up-or-down vote on the issue or the 67 needed to pass a constitutional amendment. "It's questionable whether the vote will have much effect" in November, said John Pitney, a political scientist at California's Claremont McKenna College. He cited a March survey by the Pew Research Center that showed opposition to legalizing gay marriage has dropped from 63% in 2004 to 51% now. Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution political analyst, predicts the election impact will be "a wash. I can't believe (conservative) voters will be mobilized to vote by a loss of this magnitude." The Senate acted a day after Alabama voters made their state the 20th to amend its constitution to ban gay marriage. President Bush also made two speeches on the issue in recent days, saying marriage should not be defined by judges. Republicans such as Rep. Katherine Harris (news, bio, voting record), who is running for the Senate in Florida, have run ads promising to "defend traditional marriage." In Ohio, GOP incumbent Mike DeWine has contrasted his support for a federal amendment to his challenger's opposition. DeWine's support shows he "represents the mainstream values" of his constituents, says Ohio Republican Party spokesman John McClelland. Ohio was one of 11 states that changed their constitutions in 2004 to ban gay marriage. Joanna Kuebler, a spokeswoman for Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown, a House member who opposes the ban, notes DeWine didn't back the state initiative and has "had an election-year conversion." Montana Republican Conrad Burns' campaign didn't even wait until the Senate voted to send an e-mail. "How would newly minted Democrat nominee Jon Tester vote?" it asked. "Would he stand with Montana, which overwhelmingly defended traditional marriage in 2004?" Tester's office did not return calls seeking comment. Democrats such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois noted that marriage is a state matter. They said they found it ironic that Republicans, usually staunch champions of states' rights, wanted the federal government to intervene. The House, which also fell short of the votes needed to approve an amendment in 2004, is expected to debate the issue next month. "We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan. Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said the vote shows the issue "does not have traction with anyone but the right-wing base." Democrats suggested that the GOP's focus on the issue could backfire by angering voters across the political spectrum who think lawmakers should focus on the Iraq war and other issues. "They're in trouble," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "They're going with last year's pitching What do you think?
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Signatures Questioned In Illinois Anti-Gay Amendment
by The Associated Press June 7, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Springfield, Illinois) John and Char Cepek have spent dozens of hours fact-checking information to try to keep a measure off Illinois ballots this fall that would ask voters if the state should amend its constitution to ban gay marriage. The Cepeks are part of the volunteer Fair Illinois Committee that says it has found so many errors on the ballot petitions that the referendum won't go before voters. However, gay marriage opponents who back the referendum are confident their efforts will meet the state's technical requirements. The referendum would ask voters whether they think the Illinois Constitution should define marriage between a man and a woman as the only valid legal union in Illinois. The results wouldn't change the constitution, but organizers hope it would influence lawmakers to begin the amendment process. A 1996 Illinois law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but opponents fear that law could be overturned by the courts unless the Illinois Constitution is changed. The Cepeks and most other Fair Illinois Committee members are working in the Chicago area, checking to see if names and addresses on the petition match voter registration information. Others are verifying information in downstate counties. "As a citizen of this country and Illinois, I want exactly the same rights for both of my kids," said Char Cepek, who has one gay and one straight son. "Nothing special. Nothing different. The same." Last month gay marriage opponents submitted 345,199 signatures to get the measure on Illinois ballots this fall. They need 283,111 valid signatures from registered Illinois voters to meet the state's requirements. That group, Protect Marriage Illinois, is monitoring the state's verification process and raising money for any challenges to the petition. "We want to ensure that the residents of Illinois aren't disenfranchised because they forgot to put a middle initial in, or their 'T' looks a little different or their handwriting is shaky because they signed on a bus," said David E. Smith, project director for Protect Marriage Illinois. State Board of Elections officials already have thrown out about 10,000 of the signatures submitted. Many weren't filed under the correct election jurisdiction, said Steve Sturm, legal counsel at the state board. Election authorities in 110 jurisdictions are checking about 19 percent, or 64,519, of the remaining signatures, Sturm said. The authorities will make sure the signers are registered to vote in their jurisdictions. Most will verify information of about 500 signers. About 11 election authorities have reported back to the State Board of Elections so far, but state board officials wouldn't say how many signatures were valid until all jurisdictions were finished. Jurisdictions are supposed to report to the board by June 13, but most will be asking for extensions, Sturm said. Rick Garcia, political director of the gay rights group Equality Illinois, says he doubts Protect Marriage Illinois will meet the state's requirement. "There is no way that they're going to come up with that number because we're finding so many invalid (signatures)," said Garcia, who's group is spearheading the Fair Illinois Committee's campaign. Smith said he didn't have any reason to be concerned about meeting the requirements. Objections to the petition must be filed with the state board between June 27 and July 6, and Garcia said he anticipates that the Fair Illinois Committee will file one. State board officials will decide whether the advisory referendum appears on November ballots, which they have to certify by August 31. If the referendum makes the ballot, it would be Illinois' first statewide advisory referendum since 1978, according to the State Board of Elections. "If they play by the rules and if they have valid signatures, then they should be on the ballot," Garcia said. "We just want to make sure the signatures are valid and they got them in a legal fashion." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Episcopal Church Prepares For Gay Showdown
by Brian Murphy, Associated Press June 7, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET In an Easter season letter to leaders of the Anglican communion, the archbishop of Canterbury set out their priorities for a once-a-decade summit planned for 2008. The note was all about survival: How do we heal the feuds over gay clergy and other rifts and manage to hold together 77 million followers around the world? But a deeper question - being asked with increasing urgency - is whether it's worth the effort. Some critical judgments may emerge when the Episcopal Church - the American branch of the embattled worldwide Anglican family- begins its General Convention next Tuesday in Columbus, Ohio. What's at stake seems profound: A nearly 500-year-old religious tradition going back to King Henry VIII's famous break from the Vatican to establish the Church of England. But the modern reality is much more messy. Factions have engaged in theological combat since the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Conservative dioceses are withholding money, congregations are looking for leadership _ and the Anglican communion has no central authority or doctrine to try to rally around. In short: many bricks but not much mortar. Some are tired of unity, if all it means is more fighting, and a formal rupture would effectively mean little in the pews. Priests and followers have generally picked their sides. But theologians worry an Anglican disintegration would set a worrying example to other mainline Protestant denominations struggling over gay clergy and same-sex unions. ``There's a de facto split now,'' said Andrew Carey, a British-based commentator on Anglican affairs. ``We can't say it's broken beyond repair, but it's effectively impaired. Everyone is watching what will come next.'' The delegates heading for Ohio have the opportunity to seek calm or more confrontation. In crafting a message to other Anglican churches, they could send an olive branch to conservatives worldwide fuming over same-sex blessings and Robinson's widespread acceptance in the West. A snub, however, would reinforce perceptions that the communion is locked in a fatal battle over what it should stand for. Liberals, including many in the Episcopal church, say issues of social justice and anti-discrimination are the priorities for the 21st century. Traditionalists, led by Africans and the so-called Global South, insist on strict interpretations of the Bible and point to a 1998 Anglican declaration calling homosexuality ``incompatible with Scripture.'' Keeping them all under the Anglican tent is the goal of the archbishop of Canterbury, Rev. Rowan Williams. He has used his position as spiritual leader of the communion to constantly appeal for unity. ``We cannot give up,'' he told a global conference of Christian churches in February. In his March letter, he asked the Anglican leadership to ``think and pray about the challenges that face us as a worldwide church'' in preparation for the 2008 conference in London. But there's no guarantee the communion can hobble along until then. It's already a hothouse for many of the pressures facing all Christianity _ such as the growing strength and assertiveness of African churches in shaping the faith. The Anglican tensions are even sharper because no one is really in charge. Its bishops operate with wide autonomy and can either accept or ignore guidance from Williams and his advisers. This has given conservatives the confidence to attack. Combative Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola and other Africans have come close to full-scale mutiny. Some have refused to accept financial aid from U.S. Episcopal churches and have offered a spiritual home to parishes and seminarians in the West opposed to the liberal moves. They have numbers on their side: There are more Anglican communion members in Africa than in Britain and North America combined. Ironically, Africa and other impoverished points could pay the highest price if their complaints end up tearing apart the communion. Church-administered aid channels from the West could dry up. At the same time, the communion would further disintegrate into a hodgepodge of practices. ``Is the communion worth saving?'' asked Carey, whose father, Rev. George Carey, served as archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002. ``These days, it comes down to who you ask. But, if it splits up, it will be seen as a total betrayal of the idea of Christian unity. You could say there's at least a theological imperative to keep it together.'' And, some argue, important cultural common ground also hangs in the balance. In an essay in Britain's The Guardian newspaper, a philosophy professor at Wadham College answered his own question: ``Who cares about the commonwealth at prayer?'' ``The Anglican communion provides a vehicle through which smaller churches in often-ignored parts of the world can have an international voice,'' wrote Giles Fraser, who also is an Anglican vicar. ``The fracturing of Anglicanism puts a huge network of aid, goodwill and mutual understanding at considerable risk ... (and would) create yet another fault line to set believers against each other.'' The outcome of the Episcopal meeting may help set the tone. On the table is a request from some Anglican leaders for a moratorium on electing partnered gay bishops, among other things. But it could turn its back on traditionalists and invite more attacks. ``We're seeing very little compassion from people who claim to be compassionate,'' said Louie Crew, a retired professor of English at Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., and a prominent gay Episcopal activist. Despite the hand-wringing, no one is even certain how the communion could collapse. There is no formal structure for expulsion. Many conservatives strongly back a proposal by Williams to set some ground rules for membership. The Anglican Covenant would provide clearer rules for governing the communion and impose some specific guidelines on doctrine. ``It's a terrible commentary on institutional Christianity of any kind'' that after 2,000 years of tradition, the rules have to be set, said Rev. Paul Zahl, dean of the conservative Trinity Episcopal for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Ontario Ordered To Register Co-Parents On Children's Birth Records
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 7, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET (Toronto, Ontario) A Toronto judge has rapped the Ontario government, accusing it of discriminating against same-sex parents. Justice Justice Paul Rivard of the Superior Court of Justice has given the province one year to amend its process for registering births. The case involved four lesbian couples where one of the women in each relationship gave birth through artificial insemination. The government refused to register the spouses as a parents. Co-parenting is legal in Ontario but only when the non birth parent adopts the child. In their lawsuit the women said the practice was "repugnant". In his written ruling Justice Rivard said that the province is violating Canada's Constitution. Rivard said there was some evidence the provincial government had been "targeting" lesbian co-parents for discrimination. Rivard said that evidence in the case showed lesbian parents suffered pain when they were able to register and that for the children the government was perpetuating the idea there is something wrong with their families He also noted that when parents are not registered they may encounter difficulty obtaining medical treatment or a passport for their child. In a similar case a London, Ontario judge recently upheld the practice of not allowing a co-parent to be listed on birth records. That decision is under appeal and a lawyer for the Toronto couples said she may seek intervener status in the case. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Anti-Gay Amendment Advances In Pennsylvania
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 7, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage has passed the Pennsylvania House on a 136 - 61 vote, but still has a long way to go before it can be put to voters. A similar measure is awaiting a vote in Senate. If, as expected, it passes, the legislation would need to be approved again by both houses in the next session before it could be placed on the ballot. The proposed amendment would define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman and prohibit state, local and county governments from legally recognizing the unions of unmarried same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Tuesday night's vote came after three hours of heated often emotional debate and had bipartisan support. "[Traditional marriage] has been recognized by civilizations for thousands of years, by cultures all across the globe and by a majority of Pennsylvanians.," said Rep. Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster) a main sponsor of the bill. "What will the family look like in 30 years if we let the courts redefine marriage?" "Children need moms and dads," said Rep. Tom Yewcic (D-Cambria). "To say that moms and dads - male and female - don't matter causes harm in their development. Having two fathers or two mothers is neither real nor plausible biologically." But Rep. Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) who opposed the measure pointed to Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal. "What are the specific adverse effects you see from gay marriages?" "The divorce rate in Massachusetts has gone down [since gay marriage became legal]. We shouldn't write discrimination into the state constitution. You are just trying to restrict human rights." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Amendment Fails, Supporters Vow To Keep Pushing
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com June 7, 2006 - 10:40 am ET, Updated 11:00 am ET, 11:30 am ET (Washington) A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage failed to get enough votes in the Senate Wednesday to advance but the number of senators supporting it was greater than in 2004 and advocates of the measure say it is only a matter of time before it succeeds. The Senate voted 49 - 48. But 60 votes were required for the measure to survive today's test vote and a two-thirds majority is required in both houses of Congress to send an amendment to the states. It then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. Supporters of the amendment say time is on their side. "We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La). "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote." Debate on the amendment over the past two days was intense, fueled on by pressure from the White House. "Marriage today is under assault," declared the amendment's chief sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) as he opened debate on Monday. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who says he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman, said he nonetheless will vote against the amendment. "The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Reid said. "This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. All but one Democrat - Ben Nelson of Nebraska - voted against the amendment. But, Republicans were deeply divided. "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) - a possible presidential candidate in 2008. LGBT civil rights disputed claims by supporters of the proposed amendment that eventually they will succeed in betting the measure passed, noting that the additional votes today came only from freshen senators. “Momentum is on our side as a growing conservative force stands up in defense of the core American values of equality, liberty, and federalism,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero. "President Bush and the Republican leadership gambled their dwindling political capital on a discriminatory amendment and came up empty," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "With the addition of Senators Specter and Gregg, not only did every senator who voted against discrimination in 2004 stand with us today but momentum is on the side of equality." Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the vote a "tremendous victory for the core American values of equality, fairness and nondiscrimination. Once again, a bipartisan bloc soundly rejected this immoral constitutional amendment seeking to dehumanize and hurt lesbian and gay Americans and their families." Gay Democrats accused the GOP of a divisive, destructive political maneuver. "Marriage is an institution that strengthens the American family, and it should be legally extended to all couples," said Jo Wyrick, NSD Interim Executive Director. "This parlor game played today by the Republican Senate would have cut off debate on this important subject if successful. This is a conversation that we should be seriously discussing at our dinner tables and in our houses of worship, not flippantly throwing around in order for Republicans to scare up some campaign cash." In an attempt to solidify Republicans for the amendment, and shore up support among the GOP's conservative religious base, President Bush used his bully pulpit three times in almost as many days to call for passage of the amendment. Tuesday Bush issued a statement saying that the administration believes "the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few." Monday, in a nationally televised speech Bush said that "Marriage is the most fundamental right in our society and it should not be defined by activist judges." On Saturday the President used his weekly radio address to urge the Senate to pass the proposed amendment. Even though the proposed amendment is dead the House is scheduled to take up the issue next month. HRC's Solmonese had a warning Wednesday for the House GOP leadership: "For the House to now take up a bill that's dead and twice failed would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt this is nothing more than election-year posturing. A majority of Americans believe same-sex couples should be legally allowed to wed, according to a new ABC News poll. But just as many oppose amending the Constitution, the poll found. Nineteen states have their own constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage while 26 have so-called defense of marriage statutes barring gays from marrying. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Alabama Approves Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
by The Associated Press June 7, 2006 - 7:00 am ET (Montgomery, Alabama) Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Alabama on Tuesday, granting what conservative supporters called additional protection for traditional families in a state where gay unions already are illegal. Returns showed the amendment passed by wide margins in both rural and urban areas, north and south. Joseph Rembert Jr. said he didn't go to the polls solely because of the amendment, but he was glad it was on the ballot. "I'm all man, so I ain't got nothing to do with that," said Rembert, 32, of Montgomery. "I go by what the Bible says — man and woman." But Gwen Carmack of Mobile said it's not the business of government to decide who can get married and who can't. "I just prefer the state not do that. It's an individual choice," said Carmack, 56, a project manager in health care software. Supporters of the amendment were confident of easy passage. Opponents included gay-rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union. With little money to fight the amendment, they relied mainly on word-of-mouth and conversations with neighbors to build what opposition they could. Backers were concerned that the wording on the ballot could be confusing, since people had to vote "yes" to changing the Constitution. Mitchem feared that people would see the amendment and automatically vote "no" indicating they don't like gay marriage. To help alleviate any possible confusion among churchgoers, the Christian Coalition of Alabama printed more than 1 million copies of a church bulletin insert explaining that a "yes" vote "protects traditional marriage" and that a "no" vote "does not protect traditional marriage." Critics of the amendment said it was unnecessary since Alabama already has a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. They also raised questions about whether the amendment could lead to court rulings against common-law marriages among heterosexuals since it defines marriage as a "solemnized" union. Supporters said there was nothing in the amendment that would outlaw common-law marriage. Nineteen states have approved similar measures, and the vote came a day after the U.S. Senate began debate on a proposed federal amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Bush Ups Ante In Gay Amendment Debate
by The Associated Press June 6, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Washington) For the third time in recent days, President Bush is promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.The White House Tuesday issued a new statement saying that the Bush administration believes "the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few."Monday, in a nationally televised speech Bush said that "Marriage is the most fundamental right in our society and it should not be defined by activist judges." On Saturday the President used his weekly radio address to urge the Senate to pass the proposed amendment. The Senate resumed debate today before almost certainly voting down the measure tomorrow.Opponents, including most Democrats and a few Republicans, call the amendment divisive and intrusive.Republican Arlen Specter drew on what he said was a quote from the late Senator Barry Goldwater, when he complained that "Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Foreign Gay Marriage Not Legal UK Gov't Tells Court
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 6, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (London) A landmark same-sex marriage case opened today in London and could determine whether the marriages of same-sex British couples who wed abroad are legal at home. The case involves a British couple who married while they were living in Canada but whose marriage was declared to be a civil partnership when they moved back to the UK. Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger filed a lawsuit charging the government with violating their civil rights by not recognizing their marriage while allowing to stand the foreign marriages of opposite-sex couples. In court today the government, represented by Charles Falconer the Lord Chancellor and Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, argued that any marriage performed abroad that would not be legal in the UK has no status. "Civil partners are subject to no less favorable treatment than married couples,'' said Helen Mountfield, the attorney for the Lord Chancellor. "Since the practical, property, and other legal benefits of marriage have been afforded to same-sex couples whose relationships are recognized as civil partnerships under the Civil Partnership Act [there is no discrimination against same-sex couples she said. The trial is expected to last about three days with a decision not likely until July. Outside the court Wilkinson and Kitzinger met with reporters. "A heterosexual couple who married abroad would automatically have their marriage recognized as a marriage in the U.K.,'' said Wilkinson. "We feel distressed, demeaned and humiliated." Both women are university professors and were living in British Columbia when they married in 2003, shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in the Canadian province. When they returned to Britain they applied to have their marriage registered but were refused. British heterosexual couples who marry abroad are automatically considered to be married in the UK. Wilkinson and Kitzinger were told that their marriage would be considered a civil partnership but they objected. "But it is not marriage," Katzinger said. "There is no difference in formal, legal or financial terms between marriage and a civil partnership so we are not disadvantaged in that sense," said Wilkinson. "It is the principle that matters." If the women win their case it could have broad implications LGBT rights group Stonewall said. "This case is a historic legal challenge to the UK's non-recognition of same-sex marriage. If they win in the High Court, it will pave the way for further legal actions to strike down the ban on lesbian and gay couples getting married in Britain," said OutRage spokesperson Peter Tatchell. "If the court rules that lawful same-sex marriages conducted abroad should be recognized in the UK, it will be difficult to justify the continued illegality of same-sex marriages conducted within the UK." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Clinton Berates Bush Gay Marriage Stand
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 6 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (New York City) New York Senator Hillary Clinton, widely thought to be preparing for a 2008 White House run, lashed out Republicans for pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Debate on the proposed amendment enters a second day today in the Senate. At a fundraising event Tuesday Sen. Clinton said the move is the work of the "political machine of the White House and the Republican majority." She said that New Yorkers have more pressing concerns. "[They] worry about everything from terrorism to gas prices to the cost of health care to energy independence." But in her speech she stayed clear of discussing her position on gay marriage. Clinton came under fire earlier this year from the head of New York State's largest LGBT civil rights group. In a confidential memo to the board members of Empire State Pride Agenda, executive director Alan Van Capelle called for an end to financial support by gays of Clinton's re-election campaign because of her refusal to support same-sex marriage. A copy of the memo was obtained by a New York blogger and distributed on the internet. Van Capelle did not deny making the comment, but has stressed it was an unofficial remark and did not necessarily represent the organization. In the memo Van Capelle said despite his disappointment with Sen. Clinton he still intended to vote for her in November. Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton, who signed the federal defense of marriage act which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage told an audience in Maine Monday night that he opposed amending the Constitution. Clinton, speaking at rally to raise money for Democratic Gov. John E. Baldacci's re-election campaign, stressed that he continues to believe that "the union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution" but Republicans "see nothing wrong with coming up with divisive issues to try and take people's minds off what's really going on in America." "This is a debate about amending the Constitution on gay marriage when only one court in the country has legitimized it and the voters in Massachusetts may reverse it. So it's hardly a flaming issue," the former President said. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Editorials Should Come Out -- for Gay Marriage
Many newspapers now publish announcements of gay unions side-by-side with those of heterosexual marriages. If papers can do that, they can, and should, take the next step and use their editorial pages to oppose the new call for a constitutional move against gay marriages -- and offer support for making such unions legal. By Joe Strupp(June 06, 2006) -- The gay marriage debate has wasted time, energy and effort long enough. It barely shows up in a list of issues that concern Americans in a Gallup Poll released in the past week. And the current proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage may be the height of abuse.It is bad enough that newspapers have not taken a harder stance in favor of gay rights in the past. But to allow this short-sighted misuse of the Constitution to move ahead without condemnation would be the ultimate irresponsibility.Forty and fifty years ago, some of what kept the fight for black civil rights going came from newspapers. Either through the strong, tireless coverage on the news pages, or the brave, stubborn stand on some editorial pages, the plight of blacks seeking justice was a clear, necessary story that many papers would not let go.Today's fight for gay rights has some similar elements, but it has not reached the level of demand for full justice that the civil rights movement before it did. I remain puzzled that gays and lesbians are not taking their battle for true equality to the streets in huge numbers. That could be part of the reason that the newspapers have not taken up their cause as a priority.Still, newspapers should know that the cause of gay rights requires support. Even if one is not an avid backer of gay rights, it is not difficult to see the misuse of a Constitutional amendment to attack gay marriage. In the first place, the Defense of Marriage Act, as wrong as it may be, already outlaws the federal recognition of gay marriage, leaving it up to the states. Scholars of U.S. history know --and staunch Republicans, until now, have argued -- that states rights are the backbone of our nation.While I am not gay, I am a sharp advocate for civil rights, which should include gays and lesbians. I spent six years living in the San Francisco Bay Area, with much of that time spent covering gay issues. I also saw in San Francisco how local newspapers, daily and not, were a major element of the effort to keep this cause in the public eye. The San Francisco Chronicle was among the first to hire a reporter to cover the gay community when Randy Shilts joined the paper in the 1970s. He went on to cover the first AIDS outbreaks and penned the groundbreaking book "And The Band Played On," about the AIDS epidemic's early days.Gay marriage has already found a place in society with laws in Massachusetts and Hawaii condoning it, as well as numerous domestic partner statutes in cities and towns nationwide, including my home state of New Jersey. Add to that the many corporations that give rights and benefits to workers and it is almost embarrassing that gay marriage is not a legal entity.Many newspapers, including The New York Times, now publish announcements of gay unions side-by-side with those of heterosexual marriages. If papers can do that, they can, and should, take the next step and use their editorial pages to indicate why such unions should be just as legal.I was glad to see that several newspapers, from The Washington Post to The Times of Trenton, N.J., have editorialized against Bush's latest proposal. Hopefully, more will do so this week. To be sure, gay marriage will be legal and common some day, and hard earned, like women's suffrage and desegregation of schools in our past. Joe Strupp ( jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P. What do you think?
Gay Rights Group Buys Billboards in Bill Frist's Hometown as Federal Marriage Amendment Goes to Senate Floor
06.06.06 (Lynchburg, VA) - Soulforce, the organization founded to end religion-based discrimination of gays and lesbians, is taking their cause to the boyhood streets of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Senator responsible for re-introducing the controversial marriage amendment. Scheduled for the first week of June, Soulforce placed sixteen billboard posters in and around his hometown of Nashville, Tennessee to call attention to the issue. The billboards feature part of a speech given by Coretta Scott King at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey on March 24, 2004, when she said, “Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protections, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.” In addition to the Soulforce.org web address, the billboards include a photograph of Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes with his partner and son. Lutes adds, “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and others, under pressure from wealthy fundamentalists, are again trying to write discrimination into the constitution rather than focusing on the real problems facing America. Soulforce reminds Senator Frist’s hometown that Mrs. King stood for the full equality of lesbian and gay Americans and against homophobia, especially homophobia in the black community. Mrs. King publicly saluted the gays and lesbians that fought for her freedom in Montgomery and Selma and other places during the civil rights movement, and she compared homophobia to racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry that set the stage for repression and violence.” P roponents of the previously failed amendment feel it is their duty to force a public vote by scapegoating gays and lesbians as threats to heterosexual marriage. Helen Palmer of the League of Women Voters says, “The rights of one group should not be subjected to the vagaries of the majority.” Soulforce is dedicated to educating the public regarding the lives of non-traditional families and the harmful effects of religion based bigotry on the children caught in the cross hairs of this political red herring. The billboard campaign will remind people that Coretta Scott King called all Americans who believed in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to resist injustice and instead “make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people’.” What do you think?
Pa. House passes gay marriage ban
Wednesday, June 07, 2006By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HOW THEY VOTEDThe state House last night approved a bill that would outlaw same-sex marriages in Pennsyvlania. Here's how Pittsburgh-area legislators voted:
Republicans -- Yes Brian Ellis of Butler; John Maher of Upper St. Clair; Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry; Mark Mustio of Moon; Jeff Pyle of Ford City; Jess Stairs of Mount Pleasant; Dick Stevenson of Grove City; Tom Stevenson of Mt. Lebanon; Mike Turzai of Bradford Woods.
Republicans -- NoMike Diven of Brookline
Democrats -- Yes
H. William DeWeese of Waynesburg; Vince Biancucci of Aliquippa; James Casorio of Irwin; Peter Daley of California; Anthony DeLuca of Penn Hills; R. Ted Harhai of Monessen; Nick Kotik of Robinson; Victor Lescovitz of Midway; David Levdansky of Forward; Joseph Markosek of Monroeville; John Pallone of New Kensington; Joseph Petrarca of Vandergrift; Thomas Petrone of Crafton Heights; Sean Ramaley of Conway; Harry Readshaw of Carrick; Larry Roberts of Hopwood; Ken Ruffing of West Mifflin; James Shaner of Lemont Furnace; Thomas Tangretti of Greensburg.
Democrats -- No
Paul Costa of Wilkins; Frank Dermody of Oakmont; Dan Frankel of Squirrel Hill; Marc J. Gergely of White Oak; Frank Pistella of Bloomfield; Joseph Preston of East Liberty; Tim Solobay of Canonsburg; Mike Veon of Beaver Falls; Don Walko of North Side; Jake Wheatley of the Hill District.
Frank LaGrotta, D-Ellwood City, was absent.
HARRISBURG -- There's still a long way to go, but advocates of traditional marriage between a man and a woman won a significant victory last night.
As the first step toward amending the state constitution, the state House voted 136-61 for a bill that would outlaw same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages in the Keystone State.
"This is a great victory for men, women and children in Pennsylvania," said a jubilant state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, a member of a five-person House team that wrote the Marriage Protection Amendment.
"It's an initial step to ensure that marriage between one man and one woman and our traditional families are protected," he said.
The vote on the controversial social policy measure, House Bill 2381, came after three hours of emotional debate. Opponents denounced it as discriminatory against same-sex couples and also nontraditional heterosexual couples, such as senior citizens who live together but aren't married.
"This is a sad day for Pennsylvania," said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill. "The proponents just want to attack nontraditional families. This bill could cause litigation out the wazoo -- court suits for years to come.
"I am stunned we are talking about this when so many issues of substance should be dealt with, such as the minimum wage, property taxes and the state budget."
The proposed constitutional change drew more Republican support than Democratic, but the split wasn't so much among political parties as it was along social lines, pitting rural, small town and conservative legislators against urban legislators.
Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, opposed the measure, saying Massachusetts has suffered no harmful effects since it legalized same-sex marriages in 2004.
"What are the specific adverse effects you see from gay marriages?" Mr. Leach asked proponents. "The divorce rate in Massachusetts has gone down [since 2004]. We shouldn't write discrimination into the state constitution. You are just trying to restrict human rights."
Mr. Leach noted that laws in some states, especially in the South, once defined marriage as "between one man and one woman of the same race."
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 struck down such racist miscegenation laws, he said, adding: "Who wants to go back to the ban on interracial marriage?"
But Rep. Scott Boyd, R-Lancaster, a main sponsor of the bill, contended that defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman "has been recognized by civilizations for thousands of years, by cultures all across the globe and by a majority of Pennsylvanians. What will the family look like in 30 years if we let the courts redefine marriage?"
"Children need moms and dads," agreed Rep. Tom Yewcic, D-Cambria. "To say that moms and dads -- male and female -- don't matter causes harm in their development. Having two fathers or two mothers is neither real nor plausible biologically."
But the bill still has a long way to go before it would take effect. It now goes to the state Senate, which proponents hope will act before the summer recess starts June 30.
Mr. Boyd said there is a constitutional requirement that voters must be given 90 days advance notice, for two years in a row, about any proposed change to the constitution. So, if the Senate doesn't act until the fall, the required notice couldn't be given by early August, as is mandatory.
But even if the Senate approves the measure by June 30, the House and Senate still must approve it a second time -- during the new legislative session that will start in January. If that happens next spring, the amendment could go to state voters for approval in November 2007.
Supporters include the American Family Association, Catholic Conference, Concerned Women for America and Pennsylvania Family Institute.
Institute President Michael Geer said constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man, one woman have been enacted in 19 states.
He said Pennsylvania should do the same, even though the state passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Similar one-man, one-woman laws are under attack in Virginia, Vermont and Washington state, he said.
"Activist judges" in some states, such as Massachusetts, have legalized same-sex marriages, he said, adding it would be much harder for judges to redefine marriage if it were contained in the state constitution.
Mr. Boyd said same-sex marriage isn't necessarily the end of the potential negative changes to traditional marriage. He said Newsweek magazine recently had an article about polygamists being next in line to seek legalization of their form of marriage. Other proponents of the bill said they feared group marriages of two or more men to two or more women.
But opponents, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia, said they were appalled by the House's action.
The ACLU's Larry Frankel said the Judiciary Committee should have held hearings on such a controversial measure.
Stacey L. Sobel of the Lesbian/Gay Center also said the Legislature was rushing too fast on a measure that "could take away the rights of thousands of Pennsylvanians."
She said it could damage an employer's domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, or health benefits, or pension benefits, rights to adoption and even protection from abuse in domestic violence cases.
"We don't know how broad this [constitutional change] will be," she said. What do you think?
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Missouri Repeals Gay Sodomy Law
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff June 4, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Jefferson City, Missouri) Missouri lawmakers have repealed the Sexual Misconduct law - three years after the US Supreme Court ruled such laws were unconstitutional. In 2003 the high court overturned a similar law in Texas invalidating all other sodomy laws in states where they still stood, including Missouri. The law had been unenforceable after the ruling but when it was in effect it set a sentence of one year in jail for sex between consenting adults of the same sex. Despite the invalidation of the law it remained on the books in Missouri until now. Rep. Scott Lipke (R-Jackson) tacked the repeal onto a sexual predator bill that he sponsored. The legislation protects minors from sexual advances and attacks. LGBT rights groups in the state have applauded the repeal, even though the law was unenforceable. "It is a clearly outdated, discriminatory law that the Supreme Court rightfully overturned," said Julie Brueggemann, director of PROMO, a statewide gay and lesbian rights group. Even though the law was unenforceable it has nevertheless been cited in other cases involving gays. The Missouri Department of Social Services used the old law as justification for refusing to allow a Kansas City lesbian from becoming a foster parent. Lisa Johnston sought the help of the ACLU and in February a Jackson County Circuit Court judge ruled that because the law was unenforceable it could not be used to bar gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents. Nevertheless the Department has appealed the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Heated Debate Begins On Gay Marriage Amendment
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief June 4, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET (Washington) "Marriage today is under assault," announced Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) as he opened debate on a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Allard, who is the chief sponsor of the amendment in the Senate lambasted "activist judges" and accused same-sex couples seeking the right to marry of attempting to destroy traditional marriage. "The U.S. Constitution is already in the process of being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage - but not by democratically elected members of Congress, yet by unaccountable and unelected judges," he said. The measure has little chance of moving through the Senate. It needs 67 votes, what is called a super majority. Only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska supports the amendment and it has divided Republicans. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) allowed the proposed amendment to get through his committee but he said he will vote against the measure on the floor. "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. His home state is the only area in the country where same-sex couples can wed, the result of a high court ruling in 2003 that overturned the law blocking gay unions. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who says he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman, said he nonetheless will vote against the amendment. "The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Reid said. "This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day." The proposed amendment is almost identical to one which failed to get enough votes to advance in 2004. The amendment drew 48 of the 67 votes needed to pass in 2004 and opponents believe it may get fewer votes this year. The amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only 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 the union of a man and a woman." Earlier Monday President attempted to garner support for the amendment in a televised speech. "A constitutional amendment is the most democratic method by which our country can resolve this issue," the President said. Gay Republicans quickly distanced themselves from Bush's remarks. “Good conservatives and loyal Republicans should resist politically motivated efforts to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero. “The President’s call for ‘tolerance and civility’ while advocating discrimination rings hollow. In fact, the effort to write discrimination into our Constitution is an intolerant and uncivil attack on gay and lesbian Americans and our families.” Behind the scenes on Capitol Hill on Monday Senate opponents of the amendment were working to derail the measure before it comes to a full vote on Wednesday. Democrats and moderate Republicans are working on a procedural maneuver to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Gay Marriage Would Undermine Family Structure Bush Says
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief June 4, 2006 - 2:17 pm ET (Washington) As the Senate began debate on a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage President Bush held a nationally televised news conference at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to drum up support for the measure. Bush used the phrase "activist judges" in almost every sentence in his address. "Marriage is the most fundamental right in our society and it should not be defined by activist judges," Bush declared. "Activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," he said later in his 10 minute speech. "A constitutional amendment is the most democratic method by which our country can resolve this issue," the President said. During his address Bush was surrounded by supporters of the amendment, several from some of the most extreme homophobic groups in America. Bush said that he is "proud to stand with" those who support the amendment. "Surrounded by a group of extremists, President Bush showed today how enormously out of touch this administration is with the rest of America," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas called the speech an act of "desperation". "In the face of record disapproval ratings, he is putting the demands of his Radical Right supporters above the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and the well-being of millions of American families," said Neas. "Yes, this is about pandering to his base," said Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Yes, this is about diverting America's attention from his foreign and domestic failures. But above all, this is an immoral attack on gay people, our families and our fundamental humanity. In the not-too-distant future, all those involved in this spectacle will look back with shame and regret.” A survey by the Associated Press of Senators showed that supporters of the measure are having a hard time securing 50 votes, let alone the super majority of 67 it would need to advance. Recent polls show same-sex marriage ranks near the bottom of voter concerns. At the top are Iraq, gas prices, health care and the economy. Bush's credibility on gay marriage has been called into question by a friend of President and by religious conservatives. In an interview with Newsweek an old Bush friend says that gay marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar, despite the fact that he publicly embraces an amendment banning gay marriage. "I think it was purely political," the friend tells Newsweek in the June 12 issue which went on newsstands today. "I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff." Even Bush pollster Matthew Dowd doubts it was decisive in the last election according to Newsweek. "It didn't drive turnout in 2004," says Dowd. "That is urban legend." Turnout was the same in states with bans on the ballot and those without, Dowd told the news magazine. Bush's news conference came as the Senate began debate on the amendment. But religious conservatives were critical. Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, called today's debate a "dog-and-pony show". "It's too little, too late," he told the Los Angeles Times. "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base," said Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan. Even the President's wife has issued a warning about taking up the issue. Last month Laura Bush warned the GOP not to use the proposed amendment as a campaign tool. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Freedom To Marry
Freedom To Marry Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy June 05, 2006 Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is the president of The Interfaith Alliance , the national non-partisan advocacy voice of the interfaith movement. Rev. Gaddy is a member of Clergy For Fairness, an organization of clergy members and religious leaders who strongly oppose any attempt to write discrimination into the United States Constitution. The future of same-sex marriage and the voice of the conservative right will clash this week on the floor of the U.S. Senate in a game of election year politics. This week, the Federal Marriage Amendment goes to the Senate floor for debate and a vote. In response, the radical religious right deemed yesterday, June 4, Protect Marriage Sunday.I am a huge advocate for the protection of marriage, but it appears I have a different idea than the radical religious right and some senators about what such "protection" involves. For instance, when I visited the website of the Religious Coalition for Marriage to see what their plan is to help protect marriage, all I found was information demanding that senators vote for the FMA. The amendment demands debate—raising as it does issues of civil rights, human dignity, and the relationship between houses of worship and the government in formalizing weddings. But that aside, the campaign to mobilize a political movement should not be confused with efforts to strengthen marriages, which is a worthy spiritual enterprise. The FMA would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore thousands, if not millions, of couples will be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The FMA discriminates not only against people who want to be married, but also against the faith traditions that deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed. America’s rich religious diversity has resulted in a proportionally diverse approach to marriage among our various faith traditions. These faith traditions should have the freedom to consecrate marriages on whatever theological grounds they choose. I have joined with a group of religious leaders from various faith traditions ranging from mainline Christian to Jewish and Sikh to bring this issue to the forefront. By passing the FMA, Congress is taking away our religious liberty and when one American’s religious liberty is violated, all Americans’ religious liberty is in jeopardy. We cannot tolerate discrimination being written into the Constitution. So, for those people who want to protect marriage, let me offer a few suggestions: start by raising the public’s consciousness of the dignity and importance of women in our still deeply patriarchal society; increase the minimum wage and offer tax breaks to the working poor so that spouses can see each other for quality lengths of time, rather than briefly passing on their way to two jobs; encourage family planning; start a plan to deal with domestic violence; and work to cover mental health care in medical insurance policies so serious emotional difficulties can be prevented from tearing marriages apart. These are real world actions to deal with the real world problem of protecting marriage. All Americans who value the institution of marriage should unite on the above-listed goals to truly strengthen our communities and our country. Freedom and equality are prerequisites for religious liberty to flourish in our nation. Yet, too often they are cast aside to advance one group’s view of the world. The Constitution is not a party platform, but rather a liberating document that provides all Americans guaranteed rights and freedoms. Those of us who value religious pluralism must send a unified message that freedom and equality go hand in hand with religious liberty. Congress has no business legislating one religiously-based view of marriage. In the interest of religious liberty, faith communities and houses of worship must be allowed to wrestle with the issue of marriage themselves. What do you think?
Monday, June 05, 2006
Senate Takes Up Anti-Gay Amendment Today
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief June 5 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Washington) Debate begins today in the Senate on the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage with President George W. Bush expected to make his second appeal in three days for its passage. Bush has scheduled a Rose Garden media session where he will be surrounded by supporters of the amendment, many of them from evangelical groups that have pushing Republicans for six years to pass the measure. On Saturday the President used his weekly radio address to call for the amendment's passage. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society," Bush said. The address was assailed by LGBT rights groups and the Democratic Party. In a keynote address to National Stonewall Democrats, DNC Chair Howard Dean accused Bush of supporting the introduction of "legalized discrimination in our Constitution." Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese accused the President of dividing the nation. "President Roosevelt started these radio addresses to unite Americans and President Bush is using them as a tool to divide us as a nation," said Solmonese. Matt Foreman, the Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force accused Bush of pandering to the religious right. "If this were just a political game, it would be one thing. But this is also hurting real families solely to score political points," he said. In New York State, where justices of the Court of Appeals are considering whether to overturn the state ban on gay marriage, the Executive Director, Empire State Pride Agenda said that the President’s attack on the judiciary is unbefitting of the office he holds. "There’s nothing activist about courts interpreting state constitutions to protect the civil rights of individuals and families. In fact, that’s the reason we have a Constitutional system in the first place," said Alan Van Capelle. New York is one of three states where gay marriage has reached the high court. The others are New Jersey and Washington. Hundreds of New Yorkers took part in a wedding march across the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday to show their opposition to the proposed amendment. In San Francisco on Saturday about 100 people walked across Golden Gate Bridge in support of gay marriage. But if gays and Democrats were angry the GOP isn't faring much better with conservative Christians, the party's base. Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, called today's debate a "dog-and-pony show". "It's too little, too late," he told the Los Angeles Times. "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base," said Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan. Most political observers believe the proposed amendment will fare worse than it did in 2004 when it failed to get enough votes to proceed. The measure was reintroduced this year. The proposed amendment would bar same-sex couples from marrying, block courts and state legislatures allowing gay marriage, nullify marriages already performed in Massachusetts - the only state in the country where they are currently legal - and according to critics possibly block civil unions and override domestic partner laws. The amendment was introduced by Senator Wayne Allard and reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only 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 the union of a man and a woman." The Associated Press reported Sunday that supporters of the amendment in the Senate are having a hard time securing 50 votes, let alone the super majority of 67 it would need to advance. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Canadian PM Steps Back Slightly On Gay Marriage Vote
by Ben Thompson, 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau June 4 2006 - 4:00 pm ET (Ottawa) When Canada's Conservative government reopens the gay marriage debate this fall Members of Parliament will not be asked immediately to repeal the law that allows same-sex couples to marry Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said on the weekend. Harper, who opposes gay marriage, announced last week that the issue will be raised in the House of Commons in the fall. During last winter's election campaign Harper said he would introduce a bill asking MPs if they wanted to reopen the issue. Since its election last January the Tory government has been under pressure from the Catholic Church and evangelicals to bypass the question and hold a vote on overturning the legislation. Last week Harper hedged when asked which approach he favored. On the weekend his communications director, Sandra Buckler, said the question of reopening the debate will be presented first. Then if a majority of MPs vote yes a repeal bill will be prepared and put to a vote. It is a move that likely will result in MPs voting not to reopen the issue, but one in which Harper can use to tell gay marriage opponents he did his best while appealing to moderates that the issue is finally resolved. For Harper the marriage question must be put behind him before he goes to the polls. His minority government could topple at any time. While the far right - the party's base - opposes gay marriage it is mainly centered in the West. If he is to win a majority government he must appeal to the more populous provinces of Ontario and Quebec both of which support same-sex marriage. In the past Harper has been hamstrung by the tag of leading a party of extremists. Over the past year he has sought to portray Conservatives as more moderate and closer to the middle ground of Canadian politics. There is little doubt He or his advisers know a majority of MPs will vote against reopening the marriage question. There have been growing reports that many members of his own party do not want the issue raised. On Wednesday the Canadian Press reported that a substantial number of cabinet ministers oppose bringing up a topic which in the past has been used to paint the party as intolerant. All three opposition parties support same-sex marriage. Straw polls of MPs taken by a number of national media outlets and by LGBT rights groups indicate that any motion to reopen the debate would fail by a wide margin. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Divide and Conquer the Voters
Editorial New York Times Published: June 5, 2006 President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to a cynical boost for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It was depressing in the extreme to hear the chief executive trying to pretend, at this moment in American history, that this was a critical priority. Mr. Bush's central point was that the nation is under siege from "activist judges" who are striking down anti-gay-marriage laws that conflict with their own state constitutions. That's their job, just as it is the job of state legislators to either fix the laws or change their constitutions. If there's anything the country should have learned over the past five years, it is that Mr. Bush and his supporters have no problem with judicial decisions, no matter how cutting edge, that endorse their political positions. They trot out the "activist judge" threat only when they're worried about getting out their base on Election Day. The aim of the president's radio address — which darkly warned that Massachusetts and San Francisco (nudge, nudge) are going to destroy marriage — is the same as the Republican leadership's plans to trot out one cultural hot button after another in the coming weeks. After gay marriage comes the push for a constitutional ban on flag burning, a solution in search of a problem if there ever was one. All this effort to divert the nation's attention to issues that divide and distract would be bad enough if the country were not facing real, disastrous problems at home and abroad. But then, if that weren't the case, Mr. Bush probably wouldn't feel moved to stoop so low What do you think?
Canadian Military same-sex unions not tracked
June 4, 2006 By BILL RODGERS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF OTTAWA -- Same-sex marriages are being performed on Canadian military bases but the actual number is being kept under wraps. The first wedding, conducted by a United Church minister, took place a year ago when two male soldiers were married in a chapel at CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia, under military guidelines that were established before federal legislation became law last July. While the first ceremony garnered some headlines at the time, the names of the sergeant and warrant officer remained private. "There are chaplains in the CF ... whose denominations allow them to marry couples of the same-sex, and anecdotally, in addition to the marriage in Greenwood, we're aware that there have been one or more marriages either conducted by a CF chaplain or involving a CF member or members," National Defence spokesman Joanna Calder told Sun Media. But she couldn't give a precise number because the department doesn't track or collect figures on same-sex marriage. "To the Canadian Forces a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, and they collect stats on the numbers of marriages but not the gender of the participants," Calder said. The emotionally charged same-sex marriage issue will heat up again this fall, when the Stephen Harper government delivers on a campaign promise to give MPs an opportunity to restore the traditional definition of marriage. Already, both sides of the issue are lining up to do battle. The head of the Canada Family Action Coalition expects the Tories to allow a complete public debate on the issue, something he said the previous Liberal government choked off. "I have faith in Parliament and I have faith that they will decide to, at the very least, give due process," said Charles McVety. He believes Canada could end up in the same place on the issue as France - where a same-sex couple is entitled to "all rights" and benefits of a married man and woman, but marriage has not been redefined. The executive director of Egale Canada said the Harper Tories should just get on with the vote as soon as possible. Gilles Marchildon said Egale's own number-crunching of MPs on the issue indicates a motion to reopen the debate would fail with the current makeup of the minority Parliament. What do you think?
GAY-WED MARCHERS BASH BUSH
New York Post By LORENA MONGELLI and CHRIS MICHAUDWith President Bush renewing calls for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, hundreds of people marched in protest across the Brooklyn Bridge yesterday in support of rights for same-sex couples. Bush "is pontificating to his right-wing constituents," said Manhattan's Cathy Marino-Thomas, who married her partner of 13 years in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. "We need to continue to show that we are real families with real issues, like everyone else." About 500 people toting brightly colored umbrellas walked in the rain from Brooklyn's Cadman Plaza to lower Manhattan's Battery Park as part of a rally organized by Marriage Equality New York and Loveandpride.com. The march's unofficial honorees were Gus Archilla, 91, and his partner of more than 60 years, Elmer Lokkins, 87. Archilla said: "This is true love. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to be married." What do you think?
A gay-marriage ban
(Original publication: June 4, 2006) When George Bush, the uniter-not-a-divider president, promotes a constitutional ban against gay marriage on Monday, we wish he could tell White Plains residents Carol Snyder and Heather McDonnell directly to their faces. When the leader of the free world advocates the unheard of, enshrining bias and bigotry in a document that otherwise champions personal liberty and equal treatment, he should have to look in the eyes of at least a few of the people upon whom he would formally confer second-class citizenship. Snyder, 61, and McDonnell, 53, are two of them. A couple for 16 years, they are among dozens of same-sex couples battling in the courts for the right to marry in New York; the Lower Hudson was a hotbed for gay-marriage ceremonies two years ago until an Ulster County District attorney put the clamps on a renegade New Paltz mayor and ministers who were performing the nuptials. As staff writer Keith Eddings reported, Snyder and McDonnell were couple No. 105 on the list to marry, until New York balked; instead they married in Canada, though that union is not recognized here. Only Massachusetts, by judicial decision, sanctions gay marriage. The New York lawsuit pressing for equal treatment was argued Wednesday before the state's highest court. The White Plains couple have experienced first-hand some of the very practical indignities visited upon same-sex couples, including being treated dismissively by staff during hospital visits. That's a common complaint; different counts identify literally hundreds of rights controlled by a marriage license, touching on matters ranging from property distribution to finances to parenting; many of the rights and benefits are unavailable under so-called civil-union statutes. In other words, there is no substitute for being hitched. "We wanted people whose lives would illustrate that this is not some kind of abstract issue, that it's not about symbolism, that it has direct consequences, which are enormous," lawyer Matt Coles of the American Civil Liberties Union told Eddings. "We have a complex system of laws in the state of New York that are set up to protect people who are married because we recognize as a society that economically, socially, married people function as a unit." In the courtroom, the judges inquired about the traditions and limits of marriage, and wondered why the plaintiffs weren't instead pressing their case in our Legislature, which is like asking why gays and lesbians would not wait until the next millennium. If left to public opinion, their wait might not be that long: A Pew Research Center poll in March showed a continued slide in the opposition to gay marriage: half of Americans (51 percent) oppose legalizing gay marriage, down from 63 percent in February 2004. Our position has been unequivocal: Marriage is a fundamental right, the most basic of constitutional rights, and the courts are most certainly obliged to intervene when the Legislature has slumbered in its role as protector of such rights. No need to twiddle thumbs while ordinary Americans are denied their dignity. Judge Robert S. Smith, quoted in a New York Times article, put it best in a question: "Aren't homosexuals about the classic example of people who have been abused and discriminated against" and, therefore, need the protection of the courts? Of course, opposing churches would still be free to discriminate as they please, as religious rites are church business and civil rights are government's. President Bush, who sometimes has no qualms about mixing church business with government business and campaign politics, would just as soon remove the courts from the controversy. As with all constitutional amendments, the gay-marriage ban would require two-thirds support in the House and Senate and ratification by 38 state legislatures. An Associated Press analysis suggested, however, that such support was highly unlikely — making this whole exercise a farce. "This is simply to give ammunition to the so-called religious right just to show that the president is still with them," Executive Director Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State told The AP. Just the same, we wish Bush would look Snyder and McDonnell in the eye, if only for a moment, before deciding they were less deserving than the other Americans whose rights he twice swore to uphold. What do you think?
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Bush Uses Radio Address To Bash Gay Marriage
by The Associated Press June 3, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET ( Washington) President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate. "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society." Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush's re-election. This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. "Sadly, President Bush is playing election-year politics with this divisive issue," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday. "He is shamelessly using this ploy to energize his right-wing base. We should never rewrite the Constitution to enshrine intolerance." The White House said Bush did not devote his radio address to the issue or decide to host a presidential event Monday to again endorse the amendment because it is politically expedient, but because there's a vote on it scheduled next week in the Senate. "On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations and religious leaders," Bush said in urging Congress to pass the amendment and send it to the states for ratification. "They're Republicans, Democrats and independents who've come together to support this amendment." The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. Bush said the amendment would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat - Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska - has said he will vote for it. Acknowledging that emotions often run hot in this debate, Bush urged calm. "As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard." David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children. "It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals," he said. "It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior and when it's the law, it's a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate." In his radio address, Bush struck back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation. "Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years," the president said. Bush said there is broad consensus in America to protect the institution of marriage. Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, he said. Moreover, he said, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Canada To Hold Gay Marriage Repeal Vote In Fall
by Ben Thompson, 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau June 2, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET (Montreal, Quebec) Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Friday that he is planning to hold a free vote on repealing Canada's same-sex marriage law this fall. Same-sex marriage was legalized last year by the Liberal government of Paul Martin following court rulings in a majority of provinces. The Conservatives during this year's election campaign pledged to revisit the issue and in Montreal Friday Harper said that he was fulfilling that promise. During the campaign Harper said that he would first hold a vote asking the Commons if it wanted to revisit the issue, but since the election the Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups opposed to gay marriage have been pressuring the government to avoid the question and move directly to introducing a repeal bill. Speaking with reporters Friday Harper hedged which he would do. There have been growing reports that many members of his own party do not want the issue raised. On Wednesday the Canadian Press reported that a substantial number of cabinet ministers oppose bringing up a topic which in the past has been used to paint the party as intolerant. "At this stage, we've debated it pretty thoroughly,'' Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn told CP. There also are indications even Harper is uneasy but feels obligated to hold a marriage vote and wants to get it over before his minority government is forced to go to the polls. All three opposition parties support same-sex marriage. Straw polls of MPs taken by a number of national media outlets and by LGBT rights groups indicate that any motion to reopen the debate would fail by a wide margin. Even a direct repeal bill would most likely fail. LGBT rights group Egale has been taunting the government to quickly hold a vote on revisiting gay marriage, confident it would fail. "We're relieved he has finally given a firm date when the vote will happen," Gilles Marchildon of EGALE Canada told 365Gay.com on Friday. "We're sorry it is not happening earlier. Marchildon said that Harper is only using the issue to solidify his party's base. "It is clear he is using us as fodder for his reelection campaign," Marchildon said.. Harper also was asked Friday about an invitation he received inviting him to the Opening Ceremonies of this summer's Outgames in Montreal. The Prime Minister said that a final decision has not been made on his summer travel plans. "I don't know what the status of that invitation is, he told reporters. "We haven't got any plans at the moment, but haven't made final decisions for our summer travel." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Some Methodist Churches Moving Toward Same-Sex Ceremonies
by The Associated Press June 2, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET (Omaha, Nebraska) The United Methodist bishop for Nebraska has approved a congregation's policy aimed at accommodating same-sex couples who want blessing ceremonies without breaking church rules that ban such ceremonies from Methodist congregations. Bishop Ann Sherer approved a policy before it was adopted May 7 by First United Methodist Church of Omaha. Under the policy, same-sex couples will be referred to non-Methodist clergy who will perform union ceremonies or to lay members who could conduct such ceremonies outside church. The couple will then be invited to a worship service at First United. The policy avoids United Methodist Church rules that forbid union services in its churches or conducted by its clergy. Sherer said Methodist congregations elsewhere are doing the same. "I am grateful for their faithfulness to the laws of the church and I'm also grateful they want to reach out," she said. The Rev. Chad Anglemyer of First United said his congregation wants gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to have as full access as possible. First United is the only Nebraska congregation in the Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates gay equality among Methodists. Meanwhile, delegates to the annual Minnesota state convention of the United Methodist Church on Thursday approved resolutions favoring ordination of gay clergy and performance of same-sex marriages. Their votes on the two issues will constitute recommendations to the denomination's General Convention, which meets in 2008. "We are asking the general church to be more inclusive of gay, lesbian persons in the church's life," said the Rev. Bruce Robbins of Hennepin Avenue United Methodist. Robbins said members of the Minneapolis church where he is a minister support ordaining gay clergy, and its congregation has sought to welcome gays to the church since 1992. "The issue for many people comes down to 'What does the Bible say?'" Robbins said during a break at the four-day conference at the St. Cloud Civic Center. The vote was 496-223 in favor of the petition calling for equal access to the Methodist church "regardless of sexual orientation." The resolution "to remove prohibition of United Methodist clergy from celebrating homosexual unions" passed on a 394-320 vote. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Va. activists see similarities to fight over Cincinnati ordinance
LOCAL NEWS washingtonblade.com Gay voters urged to raise profile, prepare for long haul By ELIZABETH PERRY Jun. 02, 2006 Leaders of an effort to defeat Virginia’s anti-gay marriage amendment are taking a page from the playbook of their counterparts in Cincinnati, Ohio, and encouraging gay voters to be a more powerful voice in state politics. People for the American Way and the Alexandria Gay & Lesbian Community Association hosted a screening of the film “A Blinding Flash of the Obvious” and a panel discussion about the 2004 campaign that helped repeal local anti-gay measures that prohibited laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation in Cincinnati. The discussion was held May 25 at Alexandria’s Agudas Achim Congregation and addressed lessons learned from Cincinnati’s Article XII battle, and how they could be applied to the battle over the Virginia marriage amendment coming to voters in November. Virginia panelists included Rabbi Jack Moline of Agudas Achim Congregation and the Jewish Community Relations Council; delegates Adam Ebbin of Alexandria and David Englin of Arlington; and Karen Gautney, president of the Alexandria GLCA. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry served on the panel, and Rev. Steven Baines, director of Interfaith Outreach for People for the American Way, moderated the event. Englin (D-Arlington) said that in his first committee meeting he did everything he could to soften or kill the amendment. He told the audience that they could be proud of their delegation from the 45th District, because all three representatives have spoken out against the amendment. Joseph Glover, president of the Virginia Family Policy Network, who did not attend the movie’s screening or panel discussion, said the wording of the Virginia and Ohio marriage amendments is the same as in most states in which the measure has won voter approval. He said gay marriage is already barred under current law, but if passed by Virginia voters it will be written into the state constitution. “It’s not going to change anything,” he said. “It will prevent activist judges from having a bad day and wanting to throw out a law that the newly elected legislature put into place for good reason.” He said the real question before voters in the fall will be if they want to write into law the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. “Anything else is splitting hairs,” he said. “Is there another environment that is just as good for raising children? Is there another environment for lifelong relationships that would be promoted by the state? These are the questions that all 19 states so far have answered with a resounding ‘No.’” Mobilizing forces During the panel discussion May 25, Englin said Republican politicians are at the beck and call of conservative groups in support of the amendment. If a senator votes contrary to the groups’ wishes, he hears about it on Election Day. Englin urged opponents of the amendment to mobilize to become a more powerful voting force. “We want a senator in Richmond to say, ‘I have to vote the right way or the people who put me in office will take me out’,” he said. Ebbin said some politicians oppose the amendment because it is too broadly worded. For example, Del. Shannon Valentine (D-Lynchburg) acknowledged that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. A spokesperson for her office, however, said Valentine would not vote for the amendment because she thought it “went too far.” Ebbin predicted that Alexandria and Arlington would reject the amendment and said the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the amendment, is concentrating its efforts on swing-vote counties like Fairfax. Wolfson said the two ingredients needed to defeat the amendment are information and time. He said it took 11 years for Cincinnati to win its campaign against Article XII, and it will take time for Virginia to defeat its amendment. “You may not win on the enemy’s time frame,” he said. “But it does not mean you will not win.” What do you think?
Iowa Gay marriage lawsuit heats up
By JEFF ECKHOFFREGISTER STAFF WRITER June 2, 2006 Lawyers for 25 Iowa legislators argued Friday that they should be allowed to join the legal battle over whether a state law banning gay marriages is unconstitutional.Polk County Judge Robert Hanson is expected to rule later this month on whether the politicians, all but one of whom are Republicans, can join a lawsuit brought in December by six Iowa same-sex couples who were refused marriage licenses by Polk County Recorder Tim Brien.The case, which challenges the legality of an Iowa law banning any marriage except that between a man and a woman, currently is slated for trial in October.Legislators contend that they have an inherent stake in the litigation,since it seeks to overturn a public policy that falls under theircontrol.“The practical effect of this case is that defendant Brien is not theultimate bad guy that plaintiffs are going after,” said Christopher Stovall, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based organization representing the politicians.Legislators’ involvement in the case is essential, Stovall said, since Brien “has no more interest than the general public” in a rewriting of Iowa’s marriage laws.Lawyers for Polk County have taken no public position on allowing thepoliticians to participate. Dennis Johnson, attorney for the gay couples, countered that it would be improper for legislators to weigh in on the court case since they have no legal right at stake.“My clients are entitled to have their constitutional rights adjudicatedbefore a fair and impartial court . . . without interference frompoliticians who want to meddle in their affairs,” Johnson said. “The only reason (legislators) are here is that they believe they know what the law should be. And in that respect, they’re not different than members of the public.” What do you think?
Friday, June 02, 2006
UK Couple Sues To Have Canadian Marriage Recognized
by Peter Moore, 365Gay.com London Bureau June 2, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (London) Celia Katzinger and Sue Wilkinson are taking the British government to court to have their Canadian marriage recognized in the UK. Both women are university professors and were living in British Columbia when they married in 2003, shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in the Canadian province. When they returned to Britain they applied to have their marriage registered but were refused. British heterosexual couples who marry abroad are automatically considered to be married in the UK. Their attorney will argue in the High Court next week that by not recognizing the couple's marriage the government is discriminating against the women and violating their human rights. Katzinger and Wilkinson were told they could have their relationship registered under Britain's civil partnership law. Although it offers the same rights and responsibilities as marriage "it is not marriage," Katzinger says. "There is no difference in formal, legal or financial terms between marriage and a civil partnership so we are not disadvantaged in that sense," said Wilkinson. "It is the principle that matters." The case will center on whether British law breaches the European law by treating gay couples different to heterosexuals. If they win it would not open same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian couples in the UK. The case is strictly limited to British same-sex couples who live abroad, marry, and then return to Britain. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Calif. Assembly Passes Gay Seniors Bill
by Mary Ellen Peterson, 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau June 1, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Sacramento, California) Legislation that requires the state of California to deliver programs and services targeted to LGBT seniors passed the Assembly on Thursday. The Older Californians Equality and Protection Act is aimed at ensuring that the California Department of Aging accounts for the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender seniors in all of its programs and services. The measure passed by a 48-32 vote and now goes to the Senate. "California's LGBT seniors deserve to live their golden years with dignity and stability," said the bill's sponsor, Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). By 2030, one in five Americans will be 65 or older. Roughly four million of these will be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. LGBT elders face a number of particular concerns as they age according a recent report by the Gay and Lesbian Task Force. LGBT elders often do not access adequate health care, affordable housing, and other social services that they need, due to institutionalized heterosexism. Several studies of nursing home administrators, Area Administration on Aging directors and health care providers found widespread homophobia among those entrusted with the care of America's seniors. As a result many older gays and lesbians retreat back into the closet, reinforcing isolation. California with the largest population of gay and lesbian couples of any state could see increasing problems for older gays, Equality California, the states largest LGBT rights group said. "LGBT seniors should be able to take advantage of any government service that is available to all older Californians," said Seth Kilbourn, Equality California political director. "The elder LGBT community has unique needs that should be considered in current and future state programs administered through the Department of Aging." ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Nigeria: Rights activists form alliance against anti-gay marriage bill
June 1, 2006 By AND West Africa Human rights activists in the country have formed an alliance against the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill now in the National Assembly, saying it violates people's sexuality rights. Rising from a two-day workshop on Wednesday in Abuja, the activists pledged to use every constitutional means to stop the bill, which they described as injurious to sexual minorities. They accused the sponsors of the bill of being sentimental and insensitive to the sexuality rights of a population. Already, International Centre for Reproductive Health and Sexual Rights (INCRESE), Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), Constitutional Rights Project (CRP) and Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) have formed a consortium to pursue the case. The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that three other organisations -- National Human Rights Commission, Alliance Rights and Global Rights -- also pledged their commitment to the stoppage of the bill at the workshop. The alliance is to, among other things, ensure that a public hearing is held before the bill is passed, to afford them the opportunity to contribute to its provisions. They are also to sensitise members of the public on sexuality rights as it affects everybody to elicit attitudinal change toward them. The Executive Director of INCRESE, Miss Dorothy Aken'Ova, told NAN that sexual minotiries in the country constituted a large and diverse population. She said that given the right and safe atmosphere, a very large number of women in the country would prefer same sex marriage because that was the only way they achieved sexual satisfaction. Aken'Ova said that many women pretended to be in heterosexual marriages while keeping lesbian partners to achieve their sexual satisfaction. She said that her group had 53 registered lesbians from various parts of the country, adding that many others identified with their activities but were not courageous to register. An official of Alliance Rights also said it had more than 2,000 registered homosexuals in the country. News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) What do you think?
Special justice appointed to hear gay marriage arguments
Associated Press ATLANTA - A special justice has been named to hear an appeal involving the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage, the Georgia Supreme Court announced on Thursday. Superior Court Judge F. Larry Salmon, of Floyd County, will hear arguments in place of Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Melton, a former counsel to Gov. Sonny Perdue. Melton is named in legal papers challenging the same-sex marriage ban from his time in the executive branch and has declined to participate in arguments in the case. Court spokesman Rick Diguette said substitute justices are named in most cases where a justice on the seven-member court steps aside because of a conflict. The state is appealing Superior Court Judge Constance Russell's May ruling striking down the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage. Georgia voters approved the ban with 76 percent approval in 2004. Russell said the ballot measure violated the state's single-subject rule for ballot questions. Although Georgia still has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage, Perdue said the measure may need to go before voters again in November. He has said he will call for a special session of the Legislature if the court agrees with Russell or fails to act by Aug. 7. Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled for June 27. What do you think?
Calif. appeals court to review gay marriage cases next month
By Howard Mintz Mercury News The constitutional showdown over California's ban on gay marriage will be argued on July 10 before a state appeals court. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco set the date this week, ordering that a series of related cases will be argued throughout the day. One set of cases will be argued at 9 a.m., and the other at 1:30 p.m. San Francisco city officials, civil rights organizations and same-sex couples have challenged state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman, arguing that it violates their right to equal treatment. Last year, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer declared the law unconstitutional, but put his ruling on hold while the conflict is resolved in the appellate courts. The First District must rule within 90 days of the July arguments, meaning a decision will come by early October. The California Supreme Court is expected to have the last word in the case. What do you think?
Thursday, June 01, 2006
FOF Launches Campaign To Defeat Lawmakers 'Soft' On Gay Issues
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief June 1, 2006 - 12:01 am ET (Washington) Focus on the Family, a longtime opponent of LGBT civil rights, has launched an aggressive advertising campaign attacking senators in 13 states who have stated they will not support the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment will be debated in the Senate next Monday and a vote is expected on Tuesday. The ads are running in daily newspapers and on radio stations in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Dakota. Both Democrats and Republicans are targeted. All of the politicians are up for re-election this November. FOF said that it chose states where it thought the ads would have the most impact - such as predominantly Republican states with a Democratic senator. Most Capitol Hill observers predicted the ad campaign would have little affect on next week's amendment vote but could influence voters in the fall. Focus on the Family is based in Colorado. Ads running in the The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News target Sen. Ken Salazar (D). Salazar opposes gay marriage but will vote against the proposed amendment. The ads show a freckle-faced boy and have the caption, "Why doesn't Senator Salazar believe every child needs a mother and a father?" They ask readers to call the Colorado Democrat and "urge him to support the Marriage Protection Amendment." "Sen. Salazar from the beginning has portrayed himself as a moderate," FOF spokesperson Amanda Banks told the Denver Post. This isn't the first time that Salazar and the conservative group have clashed. Last year he called FOF's political tactics "un- Christian" and accused it of "hijacking" Christianity for the Republican Party. ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Growing Number Of Canadian Tories Question Re-Opening Gay Marriage Debate
by Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press May 31, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET (Ottawa) A growing number of Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs are questioning the wisdom of reopening the divisive debate on same-sex marriage - a development that could close the book on the issue for good. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to hold a vote some time before the next election on the issue, most likely this fall. The motion is expected to ask MPs if they want to reopen discussion of same-sex marriage, rather than asking flatly if they approve of the unions or not. More and more Tories are wondering aloud whether they shouldn't just let the matter die. ``At this stage, we've debated it pretty thoroughly,'' said Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, who described the issue as more divisive than the mission to Afghanistan. ``Once you've reached the optimum, nobody is really happy, but if it's the best that you can do, then it's probably best to just leave it alone.'' Trade Minister David Emerson observed: ``If it ain't broke...'' ``Candidly, I'm not excited about reopening the issue,'' Emerson said. ``Even in the last election, when I ran as a Liberal, it was not a big issue that I was confronted with at the doorstep.'' Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said of his constituents: ``I haven't had a single person come up to me to talk about it.'' ``It certainly isn't in line with the five priorities that we've set out,'' he added. Alberta Conservative MP James Rajotte said some of his constituents who are committed to the traditional definition of marriage might now feel it's a ``done debate.'' ``Personally, I have mixed feelings on that ... I recognize that same-sex marriage has been the law in Canada for some time now, and I also recognize the difficulty in reversing it to the point where traditional marriage is the only legal union in Canada,'' he said. ``For that reason I would say I'm undecided about it, but I'm thinking seriously about it now.'' Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey said, ``I'm reflecting on it, that's all I can tell you.'' Perhaps one cabinet minister, speaking on condition of anonymity, summed it up best: ``I wish it would just go away.'' Other cabinet ministers who spoke openly against same-sex marriage in the past, are now cagey about the future bill. ``We'll have to see what the motion looks like and how it's phrased, I have no idea exactly what it's going to say so I'll have to have a look at it,'' said Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl. Said Health Minister Tony Clement: ``I'd have to see what the motion read at the time and consult with my constituency.'' During the last Commons vote on the issue a year ago, only three Conservative MPs voted in favor of same-sex marriage: Jim Prentice (now Indian Affairs minister), James Moore and Gerald Keddy. Keddy said his caucus colleagues should take him as example of what happens when you support gay rights: absolutely nothing. His Nova Scotia riding is predominantly rural and socially conservative, but he was re-elected with a bigger majority. ``Now, people have moved on, it's just not an issue. It is for a very small minority of people,'' Keddy said. ``At the end of the day Canadians are much more interested in how the federal government is going to tax them, what our stance is on the increasing crime on our streets, what's the role of the military . . . and not same-gender marriage.'' Harper made the commitment to hold the vote in response to complaints from many MPs the Liberals rushed through the law that legalized same-sex unions. But now that his party is trying to make inroads in Bloc Quebecois and Liberal ridings in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, wading into the debate might seem like a no-win situation. Add to that the fact that thousands of gay and lesbian Canadians have married since the law was passed, and you find cold feet in Conservative quarters. Charles McVety, one of the most prominent defenders of traditional marriage in Canada, says he already recognizes the uncertainty of a motion that doesn't specifically pin MPs down on their view of gay unions. ``That's a double-edged sword because with a soft motion like that it might not be taken seriously...it could give them an easy out,'' McVety said. ``That soft approach may be dangerous. The reality is there has to be a lot of work done on this.'' ©365Gay.com 2006 What do you think?
Highest Court in New York Confronts Gay Marriage
June 1, 2006 New York Times By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLISALBANY, May 31 — As the issue of gay marriage finally reached New York State's highest court on Wednesday, the six judges who heard the passionate arguments from both sides put forth a fundamental question: Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times? During the two and a half hours of oral argument, the judges on the Court of Appeals grappled with essential questions of social values, asking tough questions without tipping their hands as to their ultimate decision. They wanted to know whether there were studies showing that children raised by mothers and fathers turned out better than those raised by same-sex couples, and they wanted to know whether opening the door to gay marriage would also open the door to bigamy or polygamy. They wanted to know whether asking the courts to rewrite New York State's marriage laws was a way of letting the State Legislature escape responsibility for taking a position on a social controversy. The case before the court was a challenge to New York State's marriage laws, filed by 44 same-sex couples. Their lawyers argued that marriage was a fundamental right, and compared laws assuming marriage to be a union of a man and a woman to the laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967. Lawyers defending the marriage laws argued that even if the institution had evolved, it was the job of the Legislature — not the courts — to change them. The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the court merely had to change the gender-based language of the current law, which refers to "husband" and "wife," to something neutral, like "spouse." If the court agreed to legalize same-sex marriages, New York would become only the second state, after Massachusetts, to do so. The judges' questions pointed to the precedent-setting nature of the debate. "Isn't this the only one where you have literally the whole history of Western civilization against you?" asked Judge Robert S. Smith of the state's domestic relations law. "That does go back right to the dawn of civilization." After first citing traditional views of marriage, Judge Smith then asked whether the time was ripe for the courts to approve same-sex marriage. Judge Smith also wondered whether the issue of same-sex marriage deserved special attention because of the history of discrimination against gay people. "Aren't homosexuals about the classic example of people who have been abused and discriminated against," and who therefore need the protection of the courts? he asked. Peter H. Schiff, senior counsel to the state attorney general, said there was no urgent need to change the law, and pointed out that same-sex couples accounted for only 1.3 percent of all households in New York State, a "very small" number. "I don't think anybody 100 years ago was thinking about this issue," Mr. Schiff said. "It wasn't on the radar screen." The main lawsuit in this case was filed by a gay and lesbian rights group, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, on behalf of five same-sex New York City couples against the city clerk, Victor L. Robles, who issues marriage licenses. In New York, the legal dispute over same-sex marriage goes back two years. In February 2005, a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan found that state marriage law violated the State Constitution. That decision was overturned last December by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, which said it was up to the Legislature to change the law. In yesterday's hearing, the New York City plaintiffs were joined by three other groups of plaintiffs from across the state. New York City's lawyer, Leonard Koerner, said yesterday that even in its own case law, the Court of Appeals had affirmed the reason for marriage as "the begetting of offspring," not, as the plaintiffs argued, as the sanctioning of a loving and committed union between two people. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said that New York City is appealing the case to clarify the issue, and that he supports legislative change. Roberta A. Kaplan, arguing for same-sex marriage on behalf of 12 of the couples across the state, said there were 46,000 families with children headed by same-sex couples in New York State, and that they could not wait until their children were grown for the law to change. The seventh judge on the Court of Appeals, Albert M. Rosenblatt, removed himself from the case. His daughter, a lawyer, has argued on behalf of advocates for same-sex marriage in California. Judge Rosenblatt has been perceived as a swing vote in many cases. A spokesman for the court said that in the event of a 3-3 tie, another judge could be brought in. He said a tie had occurred only once in the last 20 years or so. Judge Victoria A. Graffeo asked whether, under the plaintiffs' argument, the Legislature should afford more rights and benefits to other types of family arrangements, such as two sisters raising children. "Was the Legislature denying them due process or equal protection?" she asked. Judge George Bundy Smith asked what the consequences of legalizing gay marriage had been in Massachusetts. "Basically nothing," Ms. Kaplan replied. "There is not a breakdown of civil society in Massachusetts and there certainly isn't a breakdown of marriage." Judge Bundy Smith also asked why gay couples were not satisfied with civil unions — a remedy that the plaintiffs argued would make them second-class citizens. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said the court would have to decide the constitutional questions, "whether we do it frontally or whether we do it in some more subversive way," like changing language about gender. To which Terence Kindlon, a lawyer for same-sex couples in Albany, replied, "Subversive is one of the words I've liked all my life, your honor." What do you think?
Gay marriage looms as 'battle of our times'
As Senate prepares to argue marriage amendment, room for compromise between religious freedom and equal rights seems thin. By Jane Lampman Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The battle over same-sex marriage is shaping into something more than deep societal tradition vs. civil rights. It is becoming a conflict of equality vs. religious liberty. As gays make gains, some religious institutions are coming under pressure. For instance: • A Christian high school in Wildomar, Calif., is being sued for expelling two students on suspicion of being lesbian. The parents' suit claims that the school is a business under state civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. • Catholic Charities in Boston, where same-sex marriage is legal, recently shuttered its adoption agency rather than serve gay and lesbian couples in conflict with church teaching. The church's request for a religious waiver from state antidiscrimination rules has made no headway. • Christian clubs at several universities are fighting to maintain school recognition while restricting their leadership to those who conform to their beliefs on homosexuality. Meanwhile, the Christian Legal Society and similar groups are mounting a national effort to challenge antidiscrimination policies in court, claiming they end up discriminating against conservative Christians. "The fight over same-sex marriage - and two very different conceptions of the ordering of society - will be a knock-down, drag-out battle," predicts Marc Stern, a religious liberty attorney at the American Jewish Congress. Both sides are pursuing their agendas in state legislatures, courts, and public schools. Both sides tend to view the struggle as a zero-sum, society-defining conflict. For supporters of gay marriage, it represents the last stage in America's long road to equality, from racial to gender to sexual equality. For opponents, traditional marriage stands as the God-ordained bedrock of society, essential to the well-being of children and the healthy functioning of the community. While no one expects the courts to force unwilling clergy to perform weddings for same-sex couples, some see a possibility that religious groups (other than houses of worship) could lose their tax-exempt status for not conforming to public policy, as did fundamentalist Bob Jones University, over racial issues in 1983. Legal experts of various views met last December, hosted by the Becket Fund, a nonpartisan institute promoting religious free expression, to consider the implications of same-sex marriage for religious liberty. Writing about the conference in The Weekly Standard, Maggie Gallagher quoted participants as seeing the coming litigation as "a train wreck," "a collision course," and "the battle of our times." To ameliorate such conflict, some insist that, given the nation's commitment to both equal rights and religious liberty, accommodations must be found. "This set of issues tests us in new ways, and I don't think either side is going to win the day," says Charles Haynes, of the First Amendment Center in Washington, in an interview. "For the foreseeable future, we are going to be living with two important claims, and we have to find ways to protect the rights of people on all sides." Douglas Laycock, of the University of Texas Law School, suggests a modification to the current joint administration of marriage by the state and religious groups. "We can never resolve the debate over same-sex marriage until we separate legal marriage from religious marriage," he says in a conference paper. "The state should administer legal marriage, and its rules ... should be made through the political process. Religious organizations should administer religious marriages," making their own rules. The legal relationship "could be called 'civil union' for gays and straights alike." Ms. Gallagher, head of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, worries about any delegalizing of marriage. "That would be a good solution if there weren't a great public purpose to marriage that needs legal support to sustain.... If you chop it into pieces, that's a powerful statement by the law that there's no important purpose to marriage as a public institution." The most immediate skirmish in the battle takes place next week, when the US Senate will debate and possibly vote on a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. While the amendment may not gain the needed two-thirds majority, the debate positions the issue as a hot-button topic for the coming political campaign. Religious leaders on both sides of the Marriage Protection Amendment have formed coalitions, demonstrating that religious perceptions vary considerably. Some 50 leaders from Roman Catholic, Mormon, Southern Baptist, Orthodox, Evangelical, and Orthodox Jewish traditions formed the Religious Coalition for Marriage, focused on strengthening its traditional role in society. They see the amendment as essential to protect "marriage from ... activist courts determined to reinterpret this fundamental institution ... against the will of the American people," says Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention. (A recent Gallup poll found 58 percent of Americans opposing same-sex marriage and 39 percent favoring it. The country is split on a constitutional amendment: 50 percent in favor, 47 percent opposed.) On the other side, Clergy for Fairness - including leaders from mainline Protestant and Reform Jewish denominations - says that people of faith disagree on same-sex marriage and that religious denominations, not the federal government, should decide whether they'll sanctify marriages. The group also says it opposes the amendment because it would mark the first time the Constitution would be used "to restrict the rights of an entire group of Americans." Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor active on gay rights issues, argues that the government should view both heterosexuality and homosexuality as morally neutral - "though how you 'deploy' your sexual activity can be very morally laden," she says. "It's an incredible stain on the government that it is denying governmental structures for loving relationships and families," she adds. Yet she acknowledges the genuine difficulty that same-sex marriage presents for some religious people. "I'd like gay people to understand that when religious people have to do something against their belief," Professor Feldblum says, "that impinges on their deep sense of self, just as I would like religious people to understand that when gay people are told they ... can't marry their loved one, that impinges on that person's deep sense of self." She's wary of granting religious waivers on these issues, however. In Gallagher's view, "We are in a situation where courts are declaring our great historic, cross-cultural understanding of marriage to be a form of bigotry. That's a very destructive message," when research shows that children do much better in households with a mother and a father. Others worry about the harm litigation battles could do. "People on both sides see this as good vs. evil," says the First Amendment Center's Dr. Haynes, "and those positions are going to tear us apart, deeply hurt the nation and our commitment to civil rights and religious freedom." Haynes has just worked with groups on both sides to develop sexual-orientation guidelines for public schools. "I've been involved in brokering nine different guidelines on issues like the Bible and religious holidays, and this has been the hardest," Haynes says. After eight months, Christian educators and a gay group involved in school issues did agree on a process for local districts to use that each side thought was fair. Whether local districts pick up on the guidelines remains to be seen. Clamor over textbooks, for example, has erupted in Massachusetts and in Canada, where kindergartners are being introduced to stories about families with same-sex parents. Although schools must reflect the legal status of such relationships in the curriculum, some parents are demanding notice and protections. "Some will ask why those parents should be given consideration," Haynes says. "The answer is that this is America, and we try to do the best we can to protect the religious liberty of even the smallest minority.... This takes more work than simply saying 'winner takes all.' " Yet who is going to broker common ground is the question as advocates on both sides seek complete victory. Legal experts expect a patchwork of legislation and court decisions to emerge. "Then we will have to worry about how to deal with the fact we have different rules in different states," Mr. Stern says. "If two or three big states move to same-sex marriage, however, it's not going to work to have different definitions across the US." What do you think?
|
| Highlights |
What you need to know to get married in Canada
learn
more.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
