by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 21, 2006 12:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) Same-sex couples in New Jersey will be able to enter civil unions beginning Feb. 19 under legislation signed Thursday by Gov. Jon Corzine, but how many couples will take advantage of the new law remains unclear.
Many gay and lesbian couples in the state say the new law is only a step toward full marriage rights. Garden State Equality, New Jersey's largest LGBT civil rights organization says it believes marriage will be legalized within two years.
One couple, Donna Harrison and Kathy Ragauckas, of Asbury Park, have been together for nine years. They told the Associated Press on Thursday they're disappointed the legislature did not legalize marriage but say they will probably get a civil union certificate anyway.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
The legislation came about as a result of an October ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. Whether to call those rights marriages, civil unions or something else was left up to lawmakers.
The legislature opted for civil unions. The bill passed the New Jersey Legislature last Thursday afternoon.
It offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner’s employer.
But it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance.
Corzine said he had some concerns about the new law.
Like laws involving marriage mayors are not obligated to conduct civil union ceremonies. Corzine said he is worried some mayors will use the provision to refuse to unite gay couples.
Already a number of mayors have warned they won't take part in civil unions (story) Legal experts have told the governor that although mayors can refuse to perform ceremonies if they conduct marriages but refuse civil unions they could be prosecuted under the state's human rights law.
The law contains a provision establishing a commission that will investigate how civil unions fall short of marriage and report back to the legislature in six months.
Lambda Legal, which represented same-sex couples in the legal battle that led to the new law, is also setting up a monitor on how the law is applied.
Lambda on Thursday announced it is launching 'Civil Union Watch'.
"The law isn't even in effect yet and already we're seeing news reports of mayors planning to discriminate against same-sex couples," said David Buckel, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the lawsuit.
"In the two years that the domestic partnerships have been in place we've seen the hardships faced by some same-sex couples, and we're prepared to continue to help couples navigate the pitfalls of a government-sanctioned second-class status," he said.
Buckle also noted that for New Yorkers, it might be better to legally marry in Canada than cross the river to New Jersey for a civil union.
"[O]utside New Jersey, it might surprise same-sex couples in New York to know that they may be far better off taking a plane to Canada to get married than hopping a train to New Jersey for a civil union. In New York there has been widespread respect for same-sex couples' marriages entered in Canada, but far less respect for civil unions putting couples who are seeking protections at greater risk for hardship," Buckel said.
Same-sex marriage is legal only in the state of Massachusetts and is limited to residents of the state and of Rhode Island.
New Jersey is the third state to legalize civil unions after Vermont and Connecticut. California has a domestic partner registry which provides some of the state benefits of marriage. The California Supreme Court will hear arguments next year in a case involving same-sex marriage rights.
©365Gay.com 2006


What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:35 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 21, 2006 9:00 pm ET
(Dublin) A lesbian couple who were wed in Canada are going to Ireland's highest court to have their marriage recognized.
Last week the High Court in Dublin rejected arguments that marriages entered into in countries where they are legal should be recognized in Ireland.
Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone, who had been together for 20 years, were married in British Columbia in September 2003 within months of the legalization of same-sex marriage there. At the time both women were working in Canada.
When they returned home and tried to file a joint income tax return the Revenue Commissioners refused to recognize the marriage citing Irish law and ordered the women to file separate returns. That would result in paying higher taxes.
In 2004 a judge found there was enough reason for the case to advance.
"[This] "isn't simply about tax bands,'' said Justice Liam McKechnie in his ruling, noting that in a country where homosexuality itself was outlawed until 1993, any move to accord gay couples the same legal rights as husbands and wives would have "profound ethical, cultural and religious'' ramifications.
Arguing before the High Court their lawyer said that the equality provisions of the Irish Constitution were violated when the tax department refused to recognize the couple's marriage.
The Irish government which opposed the suit also cited the 1937 constitution pointing to a provision which requires the Republic "to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.''
A government attorney also said that it is moving to support same-sex couples in other ways. Legislation is moving slowly through Parliament that would allow civil partnerships similar to those in the United Kingdom.
In a 138 page judgment issued last week Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled that there was no provision for same-sex marriage in the Irish constitution.
Fighting the government has nearly bankrupted the couple. This week a court refused to direct the state to pay their court costs under a provision that funds challenges to the law.
The court said that the case was not of significant enough public interest for the government to pay, something Zappone and Gilligan dispute.
Their lawyer said an appeal to the Supreme Court will be launched early in the new year.
If the court declines to hear the case or decides against them the women say they are prepared to go to the the European Court.
Last week the Irish Labor Party was introducing legislation in Parliament to recognize civil partnerships.
It would give same-sex couples legal rights in areas like taxation and inheritance.
The Government is currently in the process of drawing up legislation of its own in this area on foot of recommendations from an independent group of advisers.
That group recommended civil partnership legislation for same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples, but stopped short of proposing full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:33 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 21, 2006 9:00 pm ET
(Dublin) A lesbian couple who were wed in Canada are going to Ireland's highest court to have their marriage recognized.
Last week the High Court in Dublin rejected arguments that marriages entered into in countries where they are legal should be recognized in Ireland.
Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone (pictured), who had been together for 20 years, were married in British Columbia in September 2003 within months of the legalization of same-sex marriage there. At the time both women were working in Canada.
When they returned home and tried to file a joint income tax return the Revenue Commissioners refused to recognize the marriage citing Irish law and ordered the women to file separate returns. That would result in paying higher taxes.
In 2004 a judge found there was enough reason for the case to advance.
"[This] "isn't simply about tax bands,'' said Justice Liam McKechnie in his ruling, noting that in a country where homosexuality itself was outlawed until 1993, any move to accord gay couples the same legal rights as husbands and wives would have "profound ethical, cultural and religious'' ramifications.
Arguing before the High Court their lawyer said that the equality provisions of the Irish Constitution were violated when the tax department refused to recognize the couple's marriage.
The Irish government which opposed the suit also cited the 1937 constitution pointing to a provision which requires the Republic "to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.''
A government attorney also said that it is moving to support same-sex couples in other ways. Legislation is moving slowly through Parliament that would allow civil partnerships similar to those in the United Kingdom.
In a 138 page judgment issued last week Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled that there was no provision for same-sex marriage in the Irish constitution.
Fighting the government has nearly bankrupted the couple. This week a court refused to direct the state to pay their court costs under a provision that funds challenges to the law.
The court said that the case was not of significant enough public interest for the government to pay, something Zappone and Gilligan dispute.
Their lawyer said an appeal to the Supreme Court will be launched early in the new year.
If the court declines to hear the case or decides against them the women say they are prepared to go to the the European Court.
Last week the Irish Labor Party was introducing legislation in Parliament to recognize civil partnerships.
It would give same-sex couples legal rights in areas like taxation and inheritance.
The Government is currently in the process of drawing up legislation of its own in this area on foot of recommendations from an independent group of advisers.
That group recommended civil partnership legislation for same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples, but stopped short of proposing full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:33 AM

Next step for gay marriage
STATE SUPREME COURT: AGREES TO WEIGH WHETHER BAN VIOLATES CIVIL RIGHTS
By Patrick MayMercury News
Both sides in the legal battle over California's ban on same-sex marriage said Wednesday they hope the state Supreme Court's unanimous decision to review the issue will finally clarify whether preventing gays and lesbians from marrying is discriminatory.
Calling it ``perhaps the major civil rights issue of our time,'' San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he hopes it brings a definitive ruling on marriage equality in the nation's most populous state.
``In seeking to end this systematic discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, we are not only asserting the rights of equality and privacy uniquely enshrined in our state Constitution,'' Herrera said, ``we are also asking the Supreme Court to do what the Court of Appeal did not -- to base its decision on constitutional principles rather than on its impressions of popular opinion.''
Attorneys arguing that the ban is constitutional said they also are looking forward to a full review by the state's high court in the hopes the matter will be resolved once and for all.
``We've believed all along that only the Supreme Court can provide Californians the clarity needed on this important issue,'' said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. The attorney general's argument is not based on opposition to same-sex marriage, but he has argued in defense of the current law, which he says provides same-sex couples virtually all the rights and benefits afforded married heterosexuals .
Randy Thomasson, spokesman for Voteyesmarriage.com, a group opposing same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the court's move.
``If the law ain't broke, don't fix it,'' he said. ``This is bad news for marriage and the voters of California who already passed a state law reaffirming that marriage is a natural and beautiful institution between a man and a woman.''
The justices are reviewing a decision this fall by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that California marriage laws do not discriminate because homosexual couples have most of the rights granted married couples.
An outcome is not likely until next year. Massachusetts remains the only state that allows same-sex marriage.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the debate in the national spotlight by allowing same-sex couples to marry at City Hall in 2004. California's justices halted the wedding ceremonies and voided 4,037 marriage licenses. Sidestepping the core constitutional question, they ruled that the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law. The justices, however, solicited arguments on whether banning same-sex marriage was discriminatory -- a challenge that reached the court Wednesday after meandering through trial and appellate courts.
Whether prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates their constitutional rights is the biggest question surrounding marriage the California Supreme Court has faced since 1948, when it ruled that laws banning mixed-race marriages were unconstitutional.
The same-sex marriage case was brought by about 20 couples and the city of San Francisco. Had the court not agreed to hear it, the lower court's decision would have stood.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and lead counsel on behalf of same-sex couples in Woo vs. Lockyer, said the high court's review will bring something his clients have long been waiting for -- clarity.
``This is very significant because it means the California Supreme Court is going to definitively determine for the entire state whether same-sex couples will be able to marry in California,'' he said. ``All sides in this have a great interest in clarity. Marriage for many same-sex couples, as well as for heterosexual people, is one of the most important life-defining issues. Some of the couples we represent are elderly, even in their 80s, and they very much want to marry before either one of them dies.
``Every day that goes by,'' he said, ``our couples are hurt in so many different ways by not being able to legally marry.''
The Associated Press contributed to this story. Contact Patrick May at pmay@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5689.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:56 AM

published Thursday, December 21, 2006

Police have filed an assault charge against the executive director of Boston-based Catholic Citizenship in the attack on a woman protesting the group's anti-gay rally Saturday outside Worcester City Hall.
Sarah Loy, 27, a straight supporter of same-sex marriage, went to a rally organized by anti-gay VoteOnMarriage and Catholic Citizenship in Worchester, Mass.
Loy, who attended with her husband and a few other gay allies, went to the rally and staged a counterprotest. Loy held a sign saying "No discrimination in the Constitution."
The rally was one of many aiming to pressure the Massachusetts legislature to vote on a proposed amendment to halt same-sex marriage in the state, the only one where it is legal. Last month, Massachusetts lawmakers recessed for the year without acting on the anti-gay plan.
Larry Cirignano, 50, Catholic Citizenship's leader, led the crowd Saturday in the Pledge of Allegiance, then allegedly saw Loy and lunged at her, tackling her to the ground.
"You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now," he threatened as he pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk, according to the Worchester Telegram & Gazette.
The rally continued without any protest from the Catholic group, as a teary Loy yelled, "That's what hate does, that's what hate does," before leaving the scene.
Tom Lang, a gay-marriage supporter in Loy's group, commented on the aggressiveness of the alleged attack.
"What was so unusual and calculated about Larry Cirignano's assault on Sarah Loy was that he left the podium area right after he gave his speech and pushed Sarah to the ground, then he returned back to the podium to stand next to Evelyn Reilly and Kris Mineau as they waited for Ambassador Flynn."
"This was not your average 'heated moment.' This was a premeditated, aggressive and uncalled-for assault by the president of the Catholic Citizenship on a young lady who was exercising her right to assemble, protest and voice her free speech."
In a statement e-mailed to reporters, Cirignano claimed he just "escorted the lady back into the crowd. . . . I never touched her shoulders and she apparently thought that she could draw a foul like it was a basketball game by falling down.
"Great theater, not Academy Award material," he said.
MassEquality campaign director Marc Solomon called for Cirignano to "clean out his desk."
"Sarah Loy had every right to peacefully hold her ground, and this aggressive action by a leader of the opposition should not be allowed to stand," Solomon said in a written statement.
"This was more than intemperance," he said. "Individuals can make mistakes, but movement leaders must respond to a higher standard. In this, Mr. Cirignano clearly failed and he should go."
Catholic Citizenship was founded by former Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn to guide Catholics in political activism, the Boston Globe reported. A court hearing on the misdemeanor assault charge is pending. (Hassan Mirza and Barbara Wilcox, Gay.com)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:53 AM

12/21/2006
Gay City News
By: ANDY HUMM
As the Human Rights Campaign, the Washington-based LGBT lobby, gets ready for the first possible forward progress in years in Congress under new Democratic leadership, it previewed a report due in January on action on gay and transgender issues at the state level where 379 bills for and against LGBT rights were considered in 2006-about the same number as the previous year.
"For every step forward, there was a half-step back," said Carrie Evans, HRC's state legislative director.
There were 242 "favorable" bills that "furthered equality," she said and 34 of those passed, up from 24 last year. And 11 of 137 "unfavorable" bills were enacted in 2006, the same as 2005.
The highlight, said Evans, was Washington State's passage of an anti-discrimination law, the 17th to include sexual orientation in a state human rights statute and the ninth to also cover gender identity and expression. She also cited the November vote of Arizona voters rejecting a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, civil unions, and more broadly domestic partnerships for gays and straights alike-the first defeat for such a measure-and the narrower margins by which they were passed in seven other states.

All but a handful of states now have laws limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman, with 26 barring gays from marriage in their constitutions and 17 of those prohibiting other forms of gay relationship recognition. Hawaii's Constitution lets the Legislature regulate marriage and it denies licenses to gay couples.
Courts in Washington State and New York rejected a constitutional right of gay couples to marry while New Jersey's Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to equalize rights for them. New Jersey lawmakers chose a civil union scheme last week, joining Vermont and Connecticut. California and Hawaii gay couples have access to extensive domestic partner rights, nearly on par with the East Coast civil union benefits. Full marriage equality is only available in Massachusetts-though the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of any same-sex marriage and allows the states not to honor legal marriages of gay couples licensed elsewhere. Massachusetts currently bars out-of-state gay and lesbian couples, except for those who attest that they plan to move to the state, from marrying.
In the 24 states that do not yet have anti-gay marriage amendments in their constitutions, "it's an uphill battle for anti-gay activists," Evans said, citing legislative resistance and difficulty with the initiative process in such states as California and Florida. In 2006, 16 state legislatures had pending amendments and 13 failed to muster support for moving them forward to voter referendum. The Indiana Legislature gave the first of two required approvals in 2005 and will be voting on it again in 2007.
While 31 states have hate crimes laws including the category of sexual orientation and 10 also include gender identity or expression, no bills covering these categories were passed this year. Utah passed a hate crimes law, but specifies no defined categories of protections.
After the right-wing success at banning gays from marrying, many thought 2006 would be the year they would turn their attention to limiting same-sex parental rights. Ten such bills were introduced this year and the one that passed in Utah barring courts from granting custody or visitation rights for anyone other than a biological or adoptive parent was vetoed by Republican Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Evans said they "expect restrictions on the right of same-sex couples to adopt in Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas" in 2007. But, they also anticipate that Michigan and Colorado will adopt explicit affirmative laws permitting same-sex co-parents to use the stepparent adoption laws.
"Republican governors vetoed good legislation out of Democratic legislatures in three states-Vermont, Colorado, and in California," Evans said, where Arnold Schwarzenegger nixed three meausures. In 2005, the California governor vetoed the first same-sex marriage law ever approved by a state legislature.
Legislatures where both houses were led by Democrats introduced 77 pro-LGBT rights bills and passed 32 percent. Republican-controlled bodies had 54 positive bills to consider and passed only one. According to Evans, the Midwest was the only region that did not pass positive bills and the Northeast was the only one to reject all negative legislation.
While HRC maintains its stance as a non-partisan organization in the face of a Republican Party whose platform is overtly hostile to LGBT rights, Evans acknowledged that "80 percent of all bad legislation that passed" in the states was by legislatures where Republicans controlled both houses.
The full report on the states should be available online at http://www.hrc.org early in 2007.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:52 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 21, 2006 12:01 am ET
(Juneau, Alaska) The Alaska Supreme Court has chastised state lawmakers for attempting to delay implementation of a court ruling ordering the state to provide health benefits to the same-sex partners of state workers.
The court this week said the benefits must be available on the January 1 deadline it originally set.
Last month outgoing Gov. Frank Murkowski called the legislature into special session to approve a benefits package worked out by the Department of Administration to comply with the court order declaring the lack of health and pension benefits violated the Alaska constitution.
But rather than approving the plan the House and Senate passed legislation prohibiting the Alaska Commissioner of Administration for implementing the court ruling.
Both houses then voted to endorse a move putting the issue to a statewide plebiscite, asking voters if a constitutional amendment barring gay benefits should go on the 2008 ballot.
Alaska already has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state. An attempt to extend that to include benefits failed earlier this year in the House.
“As long as the regulations attempt to offer the benefits mandated by our opinion in a rational and non-arbitrary manner, they must be approved,” the court wrote in its ruling.
“Any new constitutional questions arising from the details of the implementing regulations must be asserted by future challenge in separate proceedings.”
Incoming Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday evening that legal options to block the benefits have run out and in the short term the state will abide by the court order. But she added that she wants voters in a special April election to consider the prospect of a constitutional amendment to terminate the state benefits for same-sex partners.
Palin then signed the bill calling for the plebiscite, setting April 3 as the day voters will go to the polls.
Last year the state Supreme Court ruled the state must establish benefits to same-sex partners of its employees in response to an action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and nine Alaska couples.
The high court ruled that because same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying in Alaska, denying them rights extended to married couples deprives them of equal protection guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:46 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 20, 2006 9:00 pm ET
(Beijing) The Chinese government is preparing to bar gays from overseas from adopting Chinese children under new guidelines about to be made official according to US private adoption agencies.
The government has not announced the changes but the US agencies, which specialize in foreign adoptions said Wednesday they were informed of the move by government officials.
Under the changes people are unmarried, over 50, or obese would be barred from adopting.
One American agency said about 25 percent of its adoptions were of Chinese children, but the agency did not say how many of those were by gay prospective parents.
The changes in the system were revealed by Adoption International Mission and Families Thru International Adoption.
While many American lesbians wishing to have children use in vitro fertilization gay men usually adopt, and many have chosen children from China.
Both US agencies said they were told the changes would come into effect May first.
A Chinese government spokesperson while declining to confirm the reports said that with the industrialization of China families have become more economically secure and as a result the number of children being placed for adoption has been dropping.
Last year Washington approved more than 7,000 visas for children being adopted from China.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:45 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 20, 2006 2:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court was told Wednesday that it does not have the power to order the legislature to vote on a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the only state where gays can wed.
The state's highest court was hearing a lawsuit filed by Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and 10 others asking the court to force a vote, or failing that direct the Secretary of State to put the issue on the 2008 ballot.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, representing the legislature told the court that under the separation of powers the justices could not force the lawmakers to act.
"Our position is that judicial relief is not available," Sacks said
Justice Roderick Ireland asked, "So what do you say to the man and woman on the street who signed the petition?"
"Their relief is at the ballot box," Sacks replied.
John Hanify, a private practice lawyer representing Romney and the other plaintiffs admitted that the court could not force the Legislature to vote on the proposed amendment.
He said, however, that the court should make it clear to the legislature that the state constitution requires that a vote be taken.
"What if a quorum doesn't show up for a vote? What if they vote to table the amendment?" asked Justice Francis Spina. Hanify agreed that there was no way to ensure a vote.
The court took the case under advisement but did not indicate when it might make its ruling.
On November 10 the legislature, meeting in a special joint session to consider the proposed amendment recessed until January 2, without taking a vote.
The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.
If as expected the convention fails to vote on January 2 - the final day of the current session - the proposed amendment would die and supporters would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.
Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of legislature - something also considered unlikely.
But if the court orders Secretary of State William Galvin to put the question directly on the 2008 ballot the legislature would be out of the picture.
Romney has opposed same-sex marriage since the first court case was filed and forced local clerks to adhere to a law dating back to the early part of the last century that said marriage licenses could only be issued to people from out of state if their marriages would be legal where they lived.
In numerous speeches around the country where the Republican governor is trying to drum up support for a presidential bid Romney has attacked same-sex marriage.
But last week a letter surfaced written by Romney in 1994 in the final weeks of his failed campaign against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in which told Log Cabin Republicans "As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gays and lesbian citizens."
Disclosure of the letter came days after Boston LGBT newspaper Bay Windows released a transcript of a 1994 interview with Romney during the Senate race in which he also pledged strong advocacy for the gay community.
Romney says he continues to believe in LGBT equality - except on the issue of same-sex marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since then, more than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state have wed.
VoteOnMarriage, the umbrella group made up of the Catholic Church, evangelical and conservative social action groups, which collected the signatures has been holding rallies throughout the state to put pressure on lawmakers to vote on Jan. 2.
Last Sunday a same-sex marriage advocate is nursing cuts and bruises after being attacked by a leading advocate of the amendment at a VoteOnMarriage rally in Worcester.
Larry Cirignano, leader of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship group allegedly left the podium an assaulted Sarah Loy, 27, who was carrying a sign reading “No discrimination in the Constitution”. She was part of a group of counter protestors who stood near the front of the rally.
Meanwhile, VoteOnMarriage has filed its own lawsuit against lawmakers.
The organization went to federal court accusing the lawmakers of violating their constitutional duty when they voted to recess the Constitutional Convention. The suit seeks $5-million in damages.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:43 AM

December 20, 2007
As 2006 winds down, it's a good time to take a look back, rest and recharge, and get ready to return in January for what already is shaping up to be a historic and potentially transformative year.
It's dawned on me in the past few weeks that 2006 was actually a pretty hard year, but, at the same time, a year in which supporters of the freedom to marry clearly made deep progress. Some of what made it hard:
We had to endure a months-long rocky patch that ran from July's shabby and divided high court rulings in New York and Washington through to the unsatisfying but still historic unanimous decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that put wind back in our movement's sails. Happily, though many feared a loss of momentum for marriage equality, no one walked away from the work at hand to win it... and we are very much back on the move.
The right-wing continued their state-by-state assault on gay and unmarried couples and their kids, inscribing discriminatory language harmful to families and antithetical to American values into seven more state constitutions.
Too many politicians and progressives continued to hesitate to make the case for justice unequivocally, sqaundering opportunities to engage the public deeper and faster and provide the reachable-but-not-yet-reached the leadership they are ready for as they wrestle with their own internal conflicts.
There is a growing tendency among some allies, and even our own, to see marriage as "inevitable," and, perversely, therefore less urgently to be fought for. Too many let themselves off the hook in complacency, or with knee-jerk assertions that the time is not yet right, or with a condescending assurance that words don't matter, civil union or even less is good enough for now , and that the less will somehow morph by itself into marriage — on someone else's watch.
How do we know that the growing numbers of us who favor ending marriage discrimination are making progress? Well, amidst the challenges and beneath the surface, 2006 offered many indicators that Americans are ready to rise to the better angels of their nature and accept committed couples' freedom to marry:
South Africa became the latest country, and the first in Africa, to end couples' exclusion from marriage, joining Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Spain, and, of course, 1/50th of the United States. Meanwhile, even more nations are moving in the direction of ending marriage discrimination through varieties of registered partnership (often for both same-sex and different-sex couples) in Andorra, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and in parts of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Spain, and the US. As the year ended, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples married elsewhere must have their marriages treated equally at home — a triumph for fairness and love in the Holy Land.
Here at home in America, candidates who supported marriage were elected and reelected in droves in states from CA to MA to NH, states where they'd voted on marriage bills or against attacks, while anti-gay and anti-marriage legislators were defeated.
Pro-marriage legislators increased in many states, and the country seemed to rouse itself and repudiate the divisive forces who have dominated the political landscape over the past several years.
For the first time, every justice on a state high court held that committed same-sex couples must be treated equally (and 3 of the 7 justices, including the incoming chief justice, recognized that equal means equal, and that means marriage).
The other disappointing court rulings were so feeble and hasty in applying a toothless standard of review to achieve the result and pass the buck to the legislature that they demonstrated anew that there is increasingly no tenable real argument justifying couples' exclusion from marriage.
The anti-gay margins by which discriminatory ballot measures passed declined in many of the states, as documented well by the Task Force. Meanwhile, Arizona succeeded in defeating a constitutional amendment that would have denied important protections to non-gay and gay families alike, the first time we've beaten one on the ballot (as apart from the many we continue to block in legislatures), while the MA legislature definitively shelved the attempt to turn back the clock on marriage there.
Elected officials continue to "evolve" in their position, from Senator Hillary Clinton, who says she no longer opposes marriage and believes committed same-sex couples should have full equality "with nothing left out," to incoming pro-marriage governors such as Eliot Spitzer in NY and Deval Patrick in MA.
Despite the railroading through of a civil union bill instead of ending marriage discrimination in NJ, a joint effort by Garden State Equality and all the key national organizations made clear that marriage is the answer, and civil union merely a way-station — and got all the legislative leaders and the governor to say that marriage is now the goal. Far from getting stuck at civil union, advocates of fairness will mount a strong effort to win marriage within 1-3 years in NJ, several New England states, NY, and CA, and beyond.
Crucial battles loom in 2007 — including the Gettysburg that is California. As I wrote in Why Marriage Matters, the key to winning is conversation: Gay people talking to non-gay people about our lives, our love, and our commitment, and why marriage matters, and non-gay people speaking out for fairness and equality and treating people the way you'd want to be treated. Everyone can be a part of this conversation, and Freedom to Marry's team, including you, is committed to redoubling our work to bringing more people in and helping each of us make sure our voice is heard in 2007. Together, we are the ones making the "inevitable" happen. Someone's got to do it.
Happy New Year!

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:40 AM

News
December 21, 2006

During a Wednesday news conference on the war in Iraq and the pending legislative session, President Bush was asked about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's gay daughter.
Without naming Cheney's longtime partner, Heather Poe, a reporter asked the president if there are any changes in the law that he would support that would give same-sex couples more legal rights, such as those involving hospital visitation and insurance benefits.
"I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly," Bush said.
Regarding Mary Cheney, he added, "This is a personal matter for the vice president and his family. I strongly support their privacy on the issue, although there's nothing private when you happen to be the president or the vice president—I recognize that. And I know Mary, and I like her, and I know she's going to be a fine, loving mother." (The Advocate)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:38 AM

By CAROL COMEGNO
Courier-Post Staff
MOUNT HOLLY

A Superior Court judge on Tuesday dismissed a divorce request to dissolve a gay marriage for a former Browns Mills woman, saying state law does not recognize same-sex marriage.
But the woman, Luna Foxx, said she never intended to seek dissolution of her marriage in 2005 in Massachusetts to Renee Foxx. Luna Foxx said she wanted to dissolve only the registered domestic partnership that she and Renee Foxx had in New Jersey, but that she had been given the wrong paperwork by family court officials.
Her divorce filing is believed to be one of the first in the state for a same-sex union.
Superior Court Judge John L. Call Jr. told the couple he could only rule on what he had before him -- a divorce complaint.
"The court cannot dissolve that which it cannot recognize," he said in a written opinion. "Therefore, the court must dismiss the divorce complaint."
Afterward, Luna Foxx said a court employee told her she had to pursue a conventional divorce even though she was in a same-sex marriage. "I did exactly what they told me to do," said Luna Foxx, who represented herself in court.
Luna Foxx said she asked Massachusetts officials about getting a divorce there but was told she could not because she was not a resident.
"Since we never lived in Massachusetts and New Jersey doesn't recognize the marriage, it doesn't matter if we're not divorced here," she said.
Call suggested that Luna Foxx, who now lives in Levittown, N.Y., contact the office of legal services to help her seek dissolution of the domestic partnership because she is indigent. Renee Foxx, a Middlesex County resident, also represented herself in court.
Luna Foxx said she intends to refile with the family court to dissolve her domestic partnership in New Jersey. The couple ran an animal rescue in Browns Mills for two years until September, she said.
In his opinion, Call cited the Oct. 25 state Supreme Court ruling ordering the Legislature to provide equal rights for same-sex couples because those rights are not provided by the domestic partnership act.
The Legislature recently approved a bill authorizing civil unions, and Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he will sign it into law.
A civil union is similar to marriage and is subject to dissolution.
Whether it would lead to recognition of same-sex marriages from other states and to divorce by New Jersey is a matter that Call said would likely be litigated in the courts "for years to come."
Luna Foxx said she and her partner never lived in Massachusetts but went there to wed after same-sex marriage was legalized in that state. Renee Foxx made no comment after the ruling.
Reach Carol Comegno at (609) 267-9486 or ccomegno@courierpostonline.com

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:36 AM

By DAVID KRAVETS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; 10:36 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on discrimination, though an outcome is not likely until late next year.
The justices are reviewing an October decision by the 1st District Court of Appeal, which ruled that California marriage laws do not discriminate because gay and lesbian couples can get most rights the state confers to married couples.
Massachusetts is the only state that authorizes same-sex marriage. California offers domestic partnerships, similar to civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed gay and lesbian couples to wed at City Hall in 2004, but California's justices halted the ensuing wedding spree and voided 4,037 marriage licenses by ruling the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law.
About 20 same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco sued the state, and the case has meandered through trial and appellate courts. Had the Supreme Court not taken the case, the lower court's decision would have stood.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city was "extremely gratified."
"It's perhaps the major civil rights issue of our time," he said.
A call to the office of Attorney General Bill Lockyer was not returned.
A 1977 law and a 2000 voter-approved measure prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying in California.
Meanwhile, in Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday that officials will abide by a state Supreme Court decision to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees as of Jan. 1.
The court on Tuesday had told the state to stop dragging its feet and implement benefits, which will end a seven-year battle by the American Civil Liberties Union and nine couples who sued.
"We believe we have no more judicial options," Palin said, shortly before the Republican signed a bill calling for voters to decide in April whether the Legislature should consider proposing a constitutional amendment to prohibit the benefits.
The high court ruled in October 2005 that denying the benefits violated the state's guarantee of equal protection for all Alaskans.
The state constitution prohibits marriage for same-sex couples.
___
Associated Press writer Steve Quinn in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:34 AM

By Robert Marus
Published December 19, 2006

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- When the 110th Congress convenes Jan. 4, the culture wars could move to a different battleground.
The shift in the House from a significant Republican majority to a significant Democratic majority probably won’t reduce legislation controversial for religious voters, according to experts. But the kind of legislation that raises controversy could be different -- shifting from arguments over church-state issues and abortion rights to battles over gay rights, embryonic stem-cell research and federal judges.
"When the new Congress convenes here in just two weeks, we expect a growing assault on pro-family and pro-life values," Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, wrote in a Dec. 19 fund-raising note to the group's supporters. The council is one of the most influential conservative Christian advocacy groups in Washington.
"The people spoke on Election Day and put a liberal majority in power," Perkins continued. "We don't believe for a minute, however, that our fellow Americans were sending a message that they want things like higher taxes on families, publicly funded embryo-killing, the end of abstinence programs, national health care, and the weakening of man-woman marriage. Unfortunately, the new leaders in Congress and their radical allies may see it differently."
From the perspective of religious moderates and progressives, however, the new Congress is simply less likely to spend time debating old-but-divisive subjects, like the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, it is more likely to consider measures that could prove controversial to some religious conservatives but inspire support among religious centrists and liberals.
In previous sessions of Congress, since Republicans took control of both chambers in 1994, legislation on issues important to the Religious Right has repeatedly come to the House floor for votes. Much of that legislation -- such as bills aimed at preventing federal courts' ability to hear cases dealing with government endorsement of religion -- never made it through the Senate.
But a handful of bills have made it through, like a ban on "partial-birth" abortions. President Bush signed the ban into law, although the Supreme Court is currently reviewing its constitutionality.
Meanwhile, several bills advocated by social moderates and liberals failed to make it to the House floor.
Preetmohan Singh, deputy director for public policy at the Interfaith Alliance, said his group is hoping for advances on legislation that would protect the rights of minority groups.
First, he said, he hopes both chambers of Congress pass the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, commonly referred to as the Hate Crimes Bill. The bill would expand the federal government's ability to aid local law-enforcement officials on crimes that appear to be motivated or aggravated by the victim's race, religious background or gender. The bill would also add real or perceived sexual orientation to the categories of citizens it protects.
Some religious conservatives have opposed the bill and similar legislation in the past, claiming it offers "special rights" to minorities.
But Singh said religious people should support a bill that singles out crimes aggravated by racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance and homophobia. "We think for hate crimes that target places of worship and individuals for their faith, there are a couple of very good reasons to support this bill, and it's inaccurate to characterize it solely as a gay-rights bill," he said.
Singh said his group also hopes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will end up on President Bush's desk. The bill would ban workplace discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation.
"Again, that's going to be seen [by some religious conservatives] as special protections, and for the Interfaith Alliance, this is bringing all American citizens to be full citizens in American public life," he said. "And we don't believe that companies, organizations, the government should be discriminating against individuals for sexual orientation."
While 14 states already have similar bills on the books, federal civil-rights laws do not ban harassment or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ENDA, despite bipartisan support, has not made it through both houses of Congress.
But the new House will be led by a speaker -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- who is a longtime supporter of gay rights. Singh said that fact, combined with advances homosexuals have made in public visibility and esteem since ENDA was first introduced in the late 1990s make its passage more likely.
"I think there has been a sea change, and I think what a lot of our fellow Americans have seen over the last several years is the humanization of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community," he said.
Passage of either ENDA or the Hate Crimes Bill may put President Bush in a delicate situation. While Bush supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, Singh noted, he has shown more openness to gays than previous Republican administrations.
"I think that he has expressed … through the Federal Marriage Amendment and other places [that] while he's for the Federal Marriage Amendment, he still says that all Americans should be treated with dignity and respect," Singh said. "I think many of us hope that if these bills reach his desk, he will act upon that notion."
But the legislative director for one gay-rights group cautioned that such bills aren't necessarily a shoo-in. Allison Herwitt of the Human Rights Campaign noted one of the ironies of Democrats re-taking control of the House: Many of the seats Democrats picked up came at the expense of the handful of Republican House members who are supportive of gay rights.
"Unfortunately, a good number of the moderate Republicans, you know, are not coming back. And so we do need to look at some of our other friends on Capitol Hill," she said.
Herwitt also said her organization does not have assurance from new House leadership that such bills will be legislative priorities.
"We're certainly having conversations with our allies and friends on the Hill, but it's so early," she said. "But it's a much different conversation with this leadership than not having conversation with the leadership in the previous Congress."
Patrick Sammon, newly named president of the Log Cabin Republicans, declined to speculate on whether Bush might veto the hate-crimes or employment-discrimination bills. But he said his organization -- for gay GOPers and their allies -- is enthusiastic that they appeal to mainstream conservative values.
"When you are talking about issues other than marriage equality, I think it is a lot easier to make the case to Republicans as to why they should support the legislation," he said. "Polling shows overwhelming support for both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and [the] hate crimes [bill]. It really is providing basic protection that in no way infringes upon people's religious liberty and their moral concerns …. And that's all we're asking for with these pieces of legislation. We're saying that gay people shouldn't be assaulted and that gay people shouldn't be fired if they're doing their job."
The change in control of the House will also likely mean much less time devoted to controversies over church-state relations, according to a Baptist religious-freedom advocate. Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said the new majority in that chamber will not be nearly as likely to bring many of the same religion-related bills to the floor that the previous House leadership did.
"We expect to see many fewer challenges to basic establishment clause religious freedom principles," Hollman said, referring to the part of the First Amendment that bans government support for religion. For instance, she noted, Republican leaders in recent Congresses have repeatedly introduced measures to limit courts’ ability to correct violations of the establishment clause, bills that would allow churches to get involved in partisan politics while retaining their tax-exempt status.
"We are looking forward to a fresh start" with the new leadership, she noted.
Hollman also said the House's attitude toward the government's ability to fund social services directly through religious groups may change. Previous House leaders have repeatedly tried to expand that ability -- something President Bush has advocated through his "faith-based initiative."
"I'm hopeful that in the area of the faith-based initiative, we will see fewer and less controversial proposals," she said, adding: "We would like to see Congress turn its attention to its oversight responsibilities in that area."
Hollman also said the new Congress may have to deal with issues related to religious freedom in the military. She added that she expects Congress will continue interest in Internal Revenue Service rules related to churches and partisan political activity, as well as interest in federal voucher programs for religious schools.
And both Hollman and Singh cautioned that a Democratic Congress won't necessarily mean an end to legislative efforts to reduce church-state separation.
Singh pointed out that many Democratic candidates in the last election cycle spoke regularly about faith issues and made appearances in churches. And potential Democratic candidates for the party's 2008 presidential nomination have hired religion gurus.
"I think the other place where we are going to be very vigilant is the use of religion in political campaigns," Singh said. "We see in both political parties a danger in overcorrecting…saying, 'We need to frame our messages so they pertain to ‘religious voters.’’ We want politicians to be authentic when they talk about religion and not to use religion to divide Americans."
Hollman said politicians of any party can abuse religion. "We always will have to be watchful and guard against attempts to misuse religion and infringe on religious freedom," she said.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:31 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 20, 2006 - 12:01 am ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court today will hear arguments from a lawyer representing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that the legislature illegally refused to consider a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
The Republican governor's lawyer went to court November 30 seeking a ruling ordering the legislature to vote on the measure or failing that to direct the Secretary of State William Galvin to place the question on the 2008 ballot bypassing the State House.
The arguments were made to a single high court justice - Judith Cowin. Corwin declined to rule, instead forwarding the case the full court.
Romney, and the group behind the proposed amendment, are using a private attorney, John Hanify. The legislature is represented by the Attorney General's department.
On November 10 the legislature, meeting in a special joint session to consider the proposed amendment recessed until January 2, without taking a vote.
The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.
If as expected the convention fails to vote on January 2 - the final day of the current session - supporters of the amendment would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.
Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of legislature - something also considered unlikely.
But if the court orders Secretary of State William Galvin to put the question directly on the 2008 ballot the legislature would be out of the picture.
Romney has opposed same-sex marriage since the first court case was filed and forced local clerks to adhere to a law dating back to the early part of the last century that said marriage licenses could only be issued to people from out of state if their marriages would be legal where they lived.
In numerous speeches around the country where the Republican governor is trying to drum up support for a presidential bid Romney has attacked same-sex marriage.
But last week a letter surfaced written by Romney in 1994 in the final weeks of his failed campaign against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in which told Log Cabin Republicans "As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gays and lesbian citizens."
Disclosure of the letter came days after Boston LGBT newspaper Bay Windows released a transcript of a 1994 interview with Romney during the Senate race in which he also pledged strong advocacy for the gay community.
Romney says he continues to believe in LGBT equality - except on the issue of same-sex marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since then, more than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state have wed.
VoteOnMarriage, the umbrella group made up of the Catholic Church, evangelical and conservative social action groups, which collected the signatures has been holding rallies throughout the state to put pressure on lawmakers to vote on Jan. 2.
Last Sunday a same-sex marriage advocate is nursing cuts and bruises after being attacked by a leading advocate of the amendment at a VoteOnMarriage rally in Worcester.
Larry Cirignano, leader of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship group allegedly left the podium an assaulted Sarah Loy, 27, who was carrying a sign reading “No discrimination in the Constitution”. She was part of a group of counter protestors who stood near the front of the rally.
Meanwhile, VoteOnMarriage has filed its own lawsuit against lawmakers.
The organization went to federal court accusing the lawmakers of violating their constitutional duty when they voted to recess the Constitutional Convention. The suit seeks $5-million in damages.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:18 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 19, 2006 5:00 pm ET
(Richmond, Virginia) Equality Virginia has received state money to establish an anti-domestic violence project, even though Virginia has what is described as the most repressive laws barring the recognition of same-sex relationships in the country.
The funding comes from the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Victim Fund at the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services.
It will support the initial two years of the program and will allow for a statewide needs assessment survey of GLBT Virginians and will help identify resources for those affected.
The project will be undertaken by the Equality Virginia Education Fund, the research and education arm of Equality Virginia.
It will study interpersonal violence, including sexual and domestic violence, stalking, and related hate-motivated violence and harassment, and provide resources and support for victims.
“There is little understanding of interpersonal violence within the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, and even fewer resources to assist those being affected," said Dyana Mason, Executive Director.
"The Anti-Violence Project will help understand the problem, and provide much needed help to those in need.”
The Project will also collaborate with other health and domestic violence services organizations across Virginia, such as the Minority Health Consortium, the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, Tidewater Aids Crisis Taskforce, Fan Free Clinic and others, to reach out to the LGBT community in Virginia.
“National studies indicate that LGBT individuals have the same risk of being a victim of sexual or domestic violence as heterosexuals--and yet the dynamics and the needs can be very different.” Said Kristi VanAudenhove, Co-Director of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance.
“This project offers an opportunity to expand our understanding in Virginia and take action to meet the unique needs of a community where relationships can not be legally recognized--jeopardizing access to safety and support for victims."
Last month Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, barring civil unions and nixing domestic partner benefits.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 19, 2006 1:00 pm ET
(Scottsdale, Arizona) A gay couple holding hands as they left a Scottsdale restaurant were attacked by as many as seven men leaving the pair badly beaten.
Andrew Frost and Jean Rolland say the attack took place just feet from the restaurant's front doors.
Frost, 19, needed numerous stitches to close wounds on his head and face. Rolland, 28, suffered many bumps and bruises.
"I had blood pouring out of me and I actually blacked out at one point," Frost told the Arizona Republic.
He said that as he and Rolland exited the restaurant he heard someone yell "fag". He said he turned and saw two men. Frost said that he replied to the slur and one of the men punched him. He said that at least five others rushed from the restaurant and joined the attack.
Frost and Rolland have filed a police report, but no one at the restaurant seems to have seen anything. The couple said they had never seen their attackers before.
"My only hope is that they're going to brag about it and tell their friends how tough they were," Rolland, a native of France who lives part-time in Scottsdale, told the Republic.
Police said that if the assailants are caught they could face hate crime charges.
Arizona includes sexuality under its hate crime law/
Frost told the paper that the attack was the second against him in the past three years. When he was 16, he said, he was attacked by two teens and an adult in Mesa. One used an aluminum baseball bat, he said.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:13 AM

by Peter Cassels
EDGE National News Editor
Tuesday Dec 19, 2006

Worcester police have filed a misdemeanor assault and battery complaint against the head of a Catholic group lobbying for an anti-gay marriage amendment following a shoving incident during a rally last weekend. The complaint, filed Dec. 18, is against Larry Cirignano, executive director of Catholic Citizenship, a Boston-based organization supporting a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Cirignano allegedly pushed Sarah Loy, an equal-marriage supporter, during an anti-gay marriage rally outside Worcester City Hall on Dec. 16. Loy fell to the ground, but was uninjured. According to Loy, who is heterosexual and a board member of the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, she had left a group of about 20 marriage equality supporters and crossed a buffer zone between the opposing groups. She was carrying a sign that read "No discrimination in the Constitution." A man later identified as Cirignano approached her and told her she would have to step back. Loy said that before she could do so, the man grabbed her by the shoulders with both hands and pushed her backward. Loy then fell to the ground, she reported.EDGE conducted a telephone interview with an eyewitness to the incident Dec. 19. Earlier, Chris Robarge of Worcester had e-mailed EDGE, writing, "As a straight man working very hard to make sure that same-sex marriage rights are not put in jeopardy here in Massachusetts, this [alleged] assault was beyond disgusting to me." During the interview, Robarge described the scene. He said a podium had been set up on steps of City Hall and there were about 20 or 30 feet of space around it. Anti-gay marriage supporters gathered in a half circle around the podium. The buffer zone about five or six feet separated them from the group of pro-equality supporters, also gathered in a half circle. "At the time of incident, I was with the pro-equality folks at the front of our circle," Robarge reported. "There was no one in front of me. Ms. Loy was within the anti-marriage group but only about 20 or 15 feet away from me."Robarge said he saw Loy being pushed. "There was a hand on each of her shoulders and then she fell," he continued. "The back of her head hit the ground. I did not see the face connected to the hands."The eyewitness reported that he was concerned for her safety, so he dropped the sign he was holding and rushed toward Loy "because there were people around her, but they didn’t do anything to help. That’s why I didn’t see his face right away. There were people around obstructing my view." As he went to assist Loy, Robarge said he saw a man backing away from the podium and leaving the gathering. "I did see that it was Mr. Cirignano," he told EDGE. "He had just spoken. I had just seen him at the podium. I didn’t know who he was but recognized him as the speaker." Police officers came up to where Loy was lying on the ground. According to Robarge, one said, "You need to get out of here. You need to get back where you are supposed to be. You need to get her out of here, too." There was no apparent concern for Loy’s well-being, Robarge added. He was one of several witnesses who later made statements to police about the incident. Police also interviewed Loy and Cirignano.Officers did not witness the incident, Worcester police spokesperson Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst told EDGE Dec. 19. If they had, they would have placed Cirignano under arrest on a misdemeanor charge, he said. "He’s already admitted that he touched her," Hazelhurst reported. Under Massachusetts law, a person can be charged with assault and battery by merely touching another person if the touch is unwanted, Hazelhurst explained. "He pushed her down and he admits that as well."Cirignano will be summonsed to appear before a clerk magistrate for a hearing to determine if he will be charged with misdemeanor assault and battery, likely in four to six weeks because of a busy court calendar, the sergeant said. A recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s Excellence in Journalism award, Peter Cassels is a member of the Online News Association. His e-mail address is pcassels@edgepublications.com.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 18, 2006 7:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine said Monday that his legal team is reviewing the civil unions bill passed last week by the legislature and hopes to sign it late this week, possibly on Thursday.
But Corzine said he already has some concerns about the legislation. Like laws involving marriage mayors are not obligated to conduct civil union ceremonies. Corzine said he is concerned some mayors will use the provision to refuse to unite gay couples.
Already a number of mayors have warned they won't take part in civil unions. Legal experts have told the governor that although mayors can refuse to perform ceremonies if they conduct marriages but refuse civil unions they could be prosecuted under the state's human rights law. Corzine Monday said he still has concerns.
Once Corzine signs the bill it will go into effect 60 days later.
Corzine had originally been expected to sign the bill last week which would have meant same-sex couples could exchange vows on Valentine's Day. But the governor in a surprise announcement said he wanted the bill examined by his legal advisors "to make sure that what we think we’re getting is what we’re getting.”
Corzine said Monday he expected that review to be completed by Thursday.
The bill passed the New Jersey Legislature last Thursday afternoon.
It offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner’s employer.
But it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance.
The bill also contains a provision establishing a commission that will investigate how civil unions fall short of marriage and report back to the legislature in six months.
LGBT rights groups in the state believe the legislation is a stepping stone to full marriage. Garden State Equality said it is confident same-sex couples will be able to marry in the state within two years.
The legislation came about as a result of an October ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. Whether to call those rights marriages, civil unions or something else was left up to lawmakers.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:00 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 18, 2006 11:00 am ET
(Brussels) European Union nations are sharply split in their attitudes toward gay marriage, with 82 percent of Dutch citizens backing it compared to less than 20 percent in several eastern and southern countries, according to a poll released Monday.
Overall, 44 percent of citizens in the 25-nation EU believe homosexual marriage should be allowed throughout the bloc, according to the Eurobarometer poll.
Support is highest in northern European nations. Behind the Dutch, 71 percent of Swedes, 69 percent of Danes and 62 percent of Belgians back the idea. In contrast, only 11 percent of Romanians, 12 percent of Latvians and 14 percent of Cypriots agree.
The twice-yearly poll questioned 30,000 people around the EU on a range of issues, from support for EU membership to legalizing cannabis.
Overall backing for EU membership fell slightly from 55 percent to 53 percent since the last poll was conducted earlier this year. The Irish were the most enthusiastic EU members with 78 percent in favor, compared to their euro-skeptic British neighbors at just 34 percent.
Support for the EU taking on new members increased by 1 percentage point to reach 46 percent. The Poles, Slovenes and Greeks were the biggest supporters of enlargement, with more than 70 percent in favor. In Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, support was around 30 percent.
For the first time, the poll questioned Europeans on a number of social issues.
It found 40 percent agreed that immigrants contribute a lot to their counties, only 26 percent think cannabis should be legalized for personal use around Europe, and 32 percent believe homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children.
The poll conducted about 1,000 interviews in each member state, and gave a margin of error of between 1.9 to 3.1 percentage points.
©365Gay.com 2006

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:59 AM

ELLEN BARRY
Los Angeles Times
NEW YORK - Ordered by the state Supreme Court to allow gay marriage or create a legal equivalent, New Jersey lawmakers on Thursday chose to allow civil unions, making New Jersey the third state to do so.
Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions, which include all the legal rights of marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to marry.
Seven weeks ago, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled by a 4 to 3 margin that gay couples are constitutionally guaranteed the benefits of marriage. But the majority ruling left it to legislators to resolve the thorny question of whether to call their unions "marriage," reasoning that "the great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process."
The ruling gave legislators six months to resolve the matter.
The bill was hurried through the process in 10 days, giving marriage advocates little ability to argue their case, said Lambda Legal Defense Fund attorney David Buckel.
"The irony is that the court referred this matter to the legislature because it did not want to short-circuit the democratic process," he said. "The legislature is doing just that."
Others saw Thursday's vote as a victory for gay rights. By guaranteeing same-sex couples rights equivalent to marriage, lawmakers "have told the world that marriage no longer matters," said Robert Knight of the Media Research Center, who opposes gay marriage. "This is a social wrecking ball."
Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said he was "jubilant for the future," because so many elected officials had committed to press for marriage rights later. A marriage equality law would expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
"Mark my words, New Jersey will see the marriage equality law passed by this legislature within the next year or two," he said.
In the days after the New Jersey Supreme Court's long-awaited ruling, one thing became clear: Voters in New Jersey were at ease with the notion of civil unions. A Quinnipiac University poll taken in early December found that 60 percent of respondents supported civil unions, and 35 percent opposed them. Asked whether gays should be able to marry, 50 percent said no, while 44 percent said yes.
There was little backing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Fifty-eight percent of voters opposed that idea; 37 percent supported it.
"We need to take a deep breath and a hard look at political reality at this point in time in New Jersey," wrote Democratic state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the civil union bill, in an editorial last week in the Record in Bergen County.
"I have no doubt personally that we eventually will have gay marriages in New Jersey without any word symbols to diminish the beauty of two committed people of the same sex who love each other," she continued. "It would be wrong to delay providing the needed rights of marriage that will come with enactment of this legislation because of a dispute over words."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said he was greatly encouraged by New Jersey's embrace of civil unions. Six years ago, when Vermont legislators passed a similar bill, it was only after a debate "that took months and nearly tore the state apart," he said.
"What I think is remarkable is that civil unions isnow widely seen by almost everyone as a fallback position, not a huge leap forward," he said.
The civil unions bill passed the state Assembly by 59-19 and the state Senate by a vote of 23-12. Corzine has said he will sign it. The law will create a 13-member Civil Union Review Commission, which will study how well the unions work, evaluate similar statutes in other states, and make changes to improve the law.
Legal challenges by gay couples seeking to marry are still pending in Maryland, Connecticut and California. Twenty-six states have sought to pre-empt rulings by explicitly banning the practice in their constitutions. Supreme Courts in Washington and New York last July upheld state laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:56 AM

Monday, December 18, 2006
By MATT DUNNStaff Writer
Same-sex couples looking to enter into civil unions in Cumberland County are better off going elsewhere if they're thinking of tying the knot at city hall.
That's because most local mayors said last week they would not perform a civil union ceremony if asked.
Of the seven county mayors Friday who returned phone calls seeking comment, only Fairfield Township Mayor Craig Thomas said he would preside over such an event.
And Thomas might not even be mayor much longer. After the 2006 elections, he admitted he may not have enough supporters to continue in his current post.
The number one reason officials said they would refuse to perform the ceremonies is that homosexuality and same-sex unions run contrary to their Christian values.
"I don't think anybody's going to ask me," Hopewell Township Mayor Hal Bickings Jr. said. "I'm a Christian. The Bible specifically says marriage is between one man and one woman."
Although New Jersey's Legislature came short of calling a union between two same-sex partners a marriage on Thursday, both the Assembly and Senate voted to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.
The bill legalizing civil unions will go before the governor for his approval shortly, and once it's signed into law, it will go into effect 60 days later.
"I'm embarrassed the state has approved this," Bickings said. "I've had calls from family members out-of-state. They've said it's an embarrassment. I would resign before I performed something like this."
Other mayors were less drastic in their comments, but echoed those sentiments.
"I'm Catholic and I believe in the sanctity of marriage and I would not (perform a civil union ceremony)," Millville Mayor Jim Quinn said.
Quinn was preparing to officiate a marriage ceremony Friday morning when contacted by the News.
"It's one of the nicer things as mayor that you get to do," he said. "I certainly understand the other part (of the argument) but I still feel old-fashioned."
Bridgeton Mayor Jim Begley is Catholic as well.
"I don't believe (civil unions) are something that the Catholic community stands behind," he remarked.
Deerfield Mayor Charlotte Brago, Shiloh Mayor Howard Scull, Vineland Mayor Perry Barse, and Upper Deerfield Mayor Ken Hill also said they would not preside over civil union ceremonies.
Scull hesitated to answer the question.
"I would have to contact my solicitor to tell me what the law tells me to do," he said. "If it's a personal choice, the answer would be no."
The law is not clear on the subject.
"I don't think there's any requirement that a mayor perform any type of service," Vineland Solicitor Rick Tonetta said.
Barse said he's "not interested" in performing civil union ceremonies.
"Not just because of my religion (Catholicism), but also because of the way I was brought up," he remarked.
Tonetta said a mayor can say they don't want to perform civil unions.
"But whether that can lead someone to conclude that they're discriminating is a good question," he stated.
A Rutgers law professor told the Associated Press in a Dec. 8 report that it's possible mayors will either be forced to perform unifying ceremonies for everyone or for no one.
"They're going to have to (perform civil union ceremonies), I think," said Sally Goldfarb, an expert on New Jersey constitutional law.
Thomas said he's going to stick to what the law tells him to do.
"If two people came to me and decided they wanted to commit their lives together ... I would not try to judge anyone's preference in life," he said. "I'm sure the other mayors feel that they have their own personal feelings. I would put myself in the role of a public servant and as a public servant, I try my best not to judge others."
Superior Court judges, county clerks, and county solicitors will also be allowed to preside over civil union ceremonies if the bill is signed into law, as well as ministers "of every religion."
"If two people want to be together and the state of New Jersey says they can have a civil union, I have no problem," County Surrogate Art Marchand said. "If that's the law, that's the law."
County Clerk Gloria Noto was not available for comment.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:54 AM

12.15.06
Three European gay NGOs have been granted observer status at the United Nations, the Economic and Social Council announced on Monday.
Approved were the Brussels-based International Lesbian and Gay Association Europe (ILGA-Europe), Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians (LBL), and Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (LSVD).
They are the first LGBT groups to be “recognised” by the United Nations, though a lesbian-only group in Australia already has observer status.
“We are delighted with the decision to grant ILGA-Europe and two of its members consultative status with ECOSOC,” said Patricia Prendiville, executive director of ILGA-Europe.
“This is a truly historic decision as now organisations representing and defending rights of LGBT people can address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity at the United Nations level. This is the best recognition of LGBT rights as human rights that LGBT activists could have received one day after marking International Human Rights Day on December 10.
“We hope this decision marks a fundamental change at the UN level with regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“Just days ago 54 member states of the UN supported a statement acknowledging these forms of discrimination and calling upon the UN to seriously address them.”
Ms Prendiville added that ILGA-Europe specifically acknowledged the European Union for its consistent commitment, support and leadership regarding the applications from organisations combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The group also acknowledged the dedicated co-operative work of sister NGOs around the world who lobbied for the UN recognition.
© 2006 UKGayNews.org.uk; All Rights Reserved.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:52 AM

December 17, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
New york Times
By FRANK RICH
IT’S not the least of John McCain’s political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn’t talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC’s “This Week” two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants’ room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn’t let him off the hook.
“Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos’s show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms left Karl Rove’s supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today’s conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn’s milieu in “Angels in America,” minus the wit and pathos.
This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr. McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians who had kowtowed egregiously to their party’s fringe, Rick Santorum and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president’s gay daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to those in her father’s party who would relegate gay American couples and their children to second-class legal or human status.
Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party’s hypocrisy last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to “do better” than even Ted Kennedy in making “equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Given that Mr. Romney has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was caught keeping time with a male prostitute.
There’s no evidence that Mr. Romney’s rightward move on gay civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop) has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000 to appearing at Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University this year. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor’s commitment ceremony.
For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good. It’s not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.
No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr. Obama’s liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host, Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing “inhumane, sick and sinister evil” as a legislator. An open letter sponsored by 18 “pro-life” groups protested the invitation, also citing Mr. Obama’s “evil.” But Mr. Warren didn’t blink.
Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy director of the Bush White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In a book, “Tempting Faith,” as well as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians and religious-right leaders who are guilty of “taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy.” Of those “family” groups who criticized Mr. Obama’s appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, “Are they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that they can think of life only in utero?” The answer, of course, is yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.
But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance. Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at Mr. Haggard’s former perch, the National Association of Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that “politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes” and give them little in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research.
The axis of family jihadis — Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association — is feeling the heat; its positions get more extreme by the day. A Concerned Women for America mouthpiece called Mary Cheney’s pregnancy “unconscionable,” condemning her for having “injured her child” and “acted in a way that denies everything that the Bush administration has worked for.” (That last statement, thankfully, is true.) This overkill reeks of desperation. So does these zealots’ recent assault on the supposedly feminizing “medical” properties of soy baby formula (which deserves the “blame for today’s rise in homosexuality,” according to the chairman of Megashift Ministries), and penguins.
Yes, penguins. These fine birds have now joined the Teletubbies and SpongeBob SquarePants in the pantheon of cuddly secret agents for “the gay agenda.” Schools are being forced to defend “And Tango Makes Three,” an acclaimed children’s picture book based on the true story of two Central Park Zoo male penguins who adopted a chick from a fertilized egg. The hit penguin movie “Happy Feet” has been outed for an “anti-religious bias” and its “endorsement of gay identity” by Michael Medved, the commentator who sets the tone for the religious right’s strictly enforced code of cultural political correctness.
Such censoriousness is increasingly the stuff of comedy. So are politicians of all stripes who advertise their faith. A liberal like Howard Dean is no more credible talking about the Bible (during the 2004 campaign he said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job) than twice-married candidates like Mr. McCain are persuasive at pledging allegiance to “the sanctity of marriage.”
For all the skeptical theories about the Obama boomlet — or real boom, we don’t know yet — no one doubts that his language about faith is his own, not a crib sheet provided by a conservative evangelical preacher or a liberal political consultant on “values.” That’s why a Democrat from Chicago whose voting record is to the left of Hillary Clinton’s received the same standing ovation from the thousands at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church that he did from his own party’s throngs in New Hampshire. After a quarter-century of watching politicians from both parties exploit religion for partisan and often mean-spirited political gain, voters on all sides of this country’s culture wars are finally in the market for something new.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 11:26 AM

December 17, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
New york Times
By FRANK RICH
IT’S not the least of John McCain’s political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn’t talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC’s “This Week” two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants’ room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn’t let him off the hook.
“Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos’s show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms left Karl Rove’s supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today’s conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn’s milieu in “Angels in America,” minus the wit and pathos.
This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr. McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians who had kowtowed egregiously to their party’s fringe, Rick Santorum and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president’s gay daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to those in her father’s party who would relegate gay American couples and their children to second-class legal or human status.
Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party’s hypocrisy last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to “do better” than even Ted Kennedy in making “equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Given that Mr. Romney has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was caught keeping time with a male prostitute.
There’s no evidence that Mr. Romney’s rightward move on gay civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop) has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000 to appearing at Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University this year. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor’s commitment ceremony.
For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good. It’s not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.
No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr. Obama’s liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host, Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing “inhumane, sick and sinister evil” as a legislator. An open letter sponsored by 18 “pro-life” groups protested the invitation, also citing Mr. Obama’s “evil.” But Mr. Warren didn’t blink.
Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy director of the Bush White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In a book, “Tempting Faith,” as well as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians and religious-right leaders who are guilty of “taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy.” Of those “family” groups who criticized Mr. Obama’s appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, “Are they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that they can think of life only in utero?” The answer, of course, is yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.
But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance. Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at Mr. Haggard’s former perch, the National Association of Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that “politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes” and give them little in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to