by The Associated Press
Posted: January 4, 2007 - 9:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Gay marriage opponents on Thursday withdrew a federal lawsuit that sought $5 million from lawmakers who blocked a vote in November on a proposed constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.The decision to withdraw the lawsuit comes two days after lawmakers voted to advance the amendment. The measure still needs approval in the next legislative session before it can appear on the ballot in 2008.VoteOnMarriage.org filed the lawsuit in December against 109 lawmakers who voted to adjourn the Legislature without considering the amendment. It claimed the lawmakers violated supporters' rights to free speech, to petition the government and due process under the law.The lawsuit sought $500,000 for the cost of the group's legal battles and another $5 million in punitive damages.Glen Lavy, a lawyer representing VoteOnMarriage.org, said there was no reason to pursue the case "now that the Legislature has chosen to do the right thing and vote."The decision also follows the threat of a countersuit by 14 of 109 lawmakers. The lawmakers sent a letter to the group on Dec. 29 calling the suit frivolous and giving them 21 days to withdraw it.Earlier on Thursday Deval Laurdine Patrick was sworn in as governor of Massachusetts. Patrick is an opponent of the proposed amendment and has vowed to have it defeated in the next round.Former Gov. Mitt Romney, an ardent supporter of the amendment, has formed exploratory committee allowing him to raise and spend money for a presidential run.
©365Gay.com 2007

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:32 AM

BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 5, 2007URL:

By Day 365, Governor Spitzer will propose legislation legalizing gay marriage in New York, a top aide to the governor said yesterday.
The Spitzer administration moved to reassure gay-rights advocates that it wasn't backing down from a campaign promise to support a same-sex marriage bill. The governor did not address the issue specifically in his 61-minute State of the State address on Wednesday.
"The governor made a commitment to advancing it this year, and he will do so," Mr. Spitzer's communications director, Darren Dopp, told The New York Sun.
Gay marriage, however, isn't a Day One issue, he said. For now, the administration is chiefly concerned with pushing forward its ethics and economic agenda and is keeping the issue of gay marriage off the front burner. "We have to prioritize and that's how we prioritized," Mr. Dopp said. "That's not to say other matters are not important."
Outlining his priorities for the year, Mr. Spitzer's State of the State address did not mention gay marriage but envisioned New York as a "state that understands that the civil rights movement still has chapters to be written."
The State of the State address is usually the most scrutinized speech a New York governor delivers. For many interest groups, having their issues mentioned in the speech is an important symbolic victory that they can crow about to their members.
After Mr. Spitzer finished his speech, environmentalists, medical researchers, unions, and education activists released statements applauding the governor for taking up their issues. Gay-rights groups were noticeably missing from the chorus of cheers.
In a press conference afterward, a reporter asked Mr. Spitzer if his remarks about the chapters yet to be written was a reference to gay marriage. Mr. Spitzer responded: "It was a reference to a range of areas where the civil rights movement has not yet been completed, and I think that subsumes all of them."
Mr. Spitzer was asked if one of those areas included gay marriage. The governor replied: "It includes all of the areas where civil rights still needs to be pursued."
Coming from a politician famous for the precision of his language, the omission raised questions about whether Mr. Spitzer was signaling a change in his position on the issue. As a candidate, Mr. Spitzer said same-sex marriage should be legal and said he would draft legislation that would make New York the second state in the nation — after Massachusetts — to extend marriage to same-sex couples.
The issue was placed in the hands of New York politicians after the Court of Appeals ruled in July that the state constitution does not require that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. The court, which is the state's highest, said the Legislature has the authority to legalize same-sex unions.
"I have said with great clarity that I think that same-sex marriage should be legal," Mr. Spitzer said in a July debate against his Democratic opponent, Nassau County executive Thomas Suozzi, according to a New York Times transcript. "I will propose a bill to permit that to be the case here in the State of New York. And I will act on that if I'm fortunate enough to be elected governor."
All of the other statewide candidates elected — Lieutenant Governor David Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who has since resigned — said they supported gay marriage.
Gay-rights advocates said in interviews that they noted that the absence of any mention of gay marriage in Mr. Spitzer's speech but were confident that the governor was sticking with his pledge.
"Some New Yorkers have been wondering why there wasn't a specific mention, but in fact, the reference to the unwritten chapters of the civil rights struggle includes us, and we will be putting the emphasis on his actions," the director of public policy and governmental affairs of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Ross Levi, said.
State Senator Thomas Duane, a Manhattan representative who is openly gay, speculated that Mr. Spitzer has taken note of President Clinton's failed effort to end the military's ban on gays. "When President Clinton came in he got very specific about his plans … and it became a distraction for some of the other things he wanted to accomplish. And he didn't get a win on gays in the military. It was probably a lesson learned for Eliot Spitzer," Mr. Duane said.
It's unclear how much support such a bill would get from lawmakers. The Democratic speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, hasn't taken a position on gay marriage, while some members of his caucus are strongly in favor of it. The Republican leader of the Senate, Joseph Bruno, who controls a fragile three-seat majority, has said he is opposed to gay marriage. But his position on gay rights has changed over the years, as some Senate members have responded to demographic changes in the state by abandoning some more conservative positions.
In 2001, Mr. Bruno reversed course by extending health insurance benefits to gay partners of state Senate employees. "He believes marriage is between a man and a woman," a spokesman for Mr. Bruno, Mark Hansen, said.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:25 AM

By: PAUL SCHINDLER
01/04/2007
Gay City News
In a pitched battle between the Old and New Guard on Beacon Hill Tuesday, outgoing Republican Governor Mitt Romney succeeded in getting the required 25 percent of the Legislature to give first approval to an anti-gay marriage amendment as Democratic Governor elect Deval Patrick struggled to hold the line in defense of the historic 2003 court ruling.
In a sharp and stunning reversal of fortune for marriage equality advocates, the lame duck session of the Massachusetts Legislature Tuesday, sitting in a joint Constitutional Convention, gave the first of two required approvals for a state ballot referendum aimed at overturning the historic 2003 Goodridge decision of the Supreme Judicial Court.In the 200-member joint session, the referendum-which would ask voters whether to change the state Constitution to bar any future marriages by same-sex couples, but not overturn those already in place-was approved by 62 and opposed by 134. Because the referendum was initiated by citizen petition, it needs the support of only 25 percent in separate votes in two successive sessions of the Legislature in order to be put on the ballot.After advancing the referendum, the legislative session adjourned and a new Legislature, reflecting the results of the November elections, will be gaveled to order later this week. Should the new session at some point as yet unscheduled also approve the referendum by a vote of 25 percent or more, Massachusetts voters would settle the future of gay marriage there in November 2008.As recently as November, marriage equality advocates were confident that the Legislature, guided by leaders who oppose the referendum, would adjourn on Tuesday by a simply majority vote without formally considering the referendum question. Had that happened, the issue would have died.But what they did not anticipate was the efficacy of gay marriage opponents, chief among them Governor Mitt Romney-who leaves office this week to mount a social conservative bid for the Republican presidential nomination-in bringing the matter before the state Supreme Judicial Court in an effort to have the state's highest court order a vote by the Legislature (see sidebar by Arthur S. Leonard). Though it ruled unanimously that it had no power to order the vote, the Court also stated unequivocally that lawmakers have a "constitutional duty" to give the issue an up or down vote.Suddenly, the legislative majority to simply adjourn, which remained firm the last time the Constitutional Convention sat in session on November 9, eroded, and the 25 percent faction in the Legislature held sway."The court decision played a significant role," Marc Solomon, campaign director of MassEquality, an umbrella organization of dozens of groups statewide working to defend the 2003 marriage ruling, told Gay City News in a telephone interview January 3. "The Supreme Judicial Court essentially told the legislators that they would be neglecting their oath of office by not voting. The Court could have written a simple two-sentence ruling denying the plaintiffs, but they didn't and it was a real whammy last Wednesday when the decision came down. It hit people pretty hard and some of our close allies told us they could not vote to adjourn.""Absolutely," was the response offered by Arlene Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, when asked by telephone if the Court's ruling was the key to this week's outcome."We were pretty sure going into January 2 that we were going to win procedurally because two-thirds supports us, but we needed three-quarters to win on the substance of the issue," she said. "We were fine until last week when our Court ruled that our Legislature had to vote on substance."So, for the second time since the 2003 marriage decision, the Legislature has advanced a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling. In a frenzy brought on by the prospect of gay marriage, legislators in March 2004-even before nuptials began-voted 105 to 92 in favor of an amendment that would have overturned the ruling but replaced marriage equality with civil unions protected in the state Constitution. Because that initiative originated in the Legislature and not from citizens, it needed a second approval by a majority of the Constitutional Convention after the 2004 elections.MassEquality, the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, and others mobilized impressively, defending every pro-marriage seat in the Legislature and netting a two-seat gain. Special elections held subsequently resulted in the pick-up of four more seats, and the handwriting was on the wall-at least for the bulk of legislators. When the amendment came up for a second vote in September 2005, it was defeated in a rout-157 to 39.In the meanwhile, Romney decided that he could not support civil unions in any event and threw his weight behind a citizen drive mounted by the Massachusetts Family Institute that had significant national right-wing support. In a bitter petition effort that several times led to street scuffles, the anti-gay forces collected 170,000 signatures, exceeding the requirements to put a referendum before the Legislature. The new amendment drive would do away with gay marriage, and offer no compensating benefits in its place.Just as the right organized, supporters of marriage equality have continued their field organizing on the ground. According to both Solomon and Isaac­son, factoring in the effects of the November elections, the new Legislature will have an additional seven marriage equality votes-which means that the vote for an amendment would presumably fall to at most 55. That figure, however, is still five more than needed to approve the referendum on its second and final consideration.The next hurdle facing supporters of gay marriage in Massachusetts, then, will be either to whittle away those remaining votes or to prevail in blocking a second straight up or down vote in the new Legislature. The politics of the situation are complicated and unpredictable. Deval L. Patrick, the Democrat who takes office as governor this week, is a strong gay marriage supporter and Isaacson described sitting with him Tuesday as he worked the phones to twist the arms of legislators. Despite the high court ruling, the governor-elect urged lawmakers to vote to close up shop if that's what it took to block the initiative."I favor ending this petition initiative promptly," the Worcester Telegram and Gazette quoted him as saying. "If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it. If the Constitutional Convention chooses to vote on the merits, I want to be utterly clear that I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong."Yet, despite his easy 20-point victory in November, the new governor will be unlikely to win the day purely on partisan appeal. The outgoing Massachusetts Legislature had a walloping 170 Democrats out of 200, yet 41 of them, including Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, of Boston, voted to advance the anti-gay referendum. The new governor, however, does have the support of the House speaker, Salvatore F. DiMasi, also of Boston. Clearly, those will be the two Democrats marriage advocates will work with most closely in the months to come.Still, despite Travaglini's long-stated view that the voters should get to decide the question, Solomon does not see gay marriage as a burning issue for the Senate president."We need to work with him and we can work with him," Solomon said of Travaglini, as he emphasized, "We need to do a very focused effort on winning legislators over."Over as Isaacson put it, "We gotta keep on keeping on."Gay marriage advocates must be heartened by the trend line in public opinion polls, which since 2004 have shown a consistent growth in the number of Bay State residents who support the 2003 ruling and increasingly want the controversy to go away. The Legislature's action Tuesday was condemned in editorials by the Boston Globe and the Springfield Republican, though it won praise in the Boston Herald and the Worcester Telegram and Gazette.For Isaacson, the greatest concern is that Tuesday's victory by anti-gay forces will whet their appetite and "turbo-charge" their fundraising."They will have tasted blood, and like any good vampire they will want more," she said.Solomon noted that the battle to overturn gay marriage in Massachusetts has attracted right-wing dollars nationwide, but is supported at home by the implacable opposition of the state's Roman Catholic bishops to gay and lesbian-headed families.Both MassEquality and the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus say that the effort to fend off the referendum will be expensive, perhaps costing, in Solomon's estimate, a couple of million dollars. And that's before a potential vote by the Legislature to put the matter on the 2008 ballot. Money raised and spent now, Solomon said, "is a good investment because if it goes to the ballot it will cost a lot more."For more information on the battle to preserve gay marriage in Massachusetts, visit
http://massequality.org/ and http://mglpc.org/.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:24 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 4, 2007 - 12:00 am ET
(Lambertville, New Jersey) While most New Jersey mayors are publicly announcing they will refuse to perform civil unions for same-sex couples when the law comes into effect next month, one mayor is making it known he wants to conduct the first union in the state.
Lambertville mayor David Del Vecchio says he wants to set an example for other communities by performing the first civil union.
Del Vecchio made the pledge at his inauguration for his sixth term as mayor.
"Some of my mayoral colleagues have already said they will not perform civil union ceremonies," Del Vecchio said.
"As mayor, I will perform civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. And it is my hope that we will be able to set an example for other communities by celebrating one of the first — if not the first — civil union in the state when the law takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on Feb. 19."
A survey by one New Jersey newspaper last month, shortly after the civil union bill was signed into law, found almost all mayors in the state would refuse to perform a civil union ceremony.
In a legal opinion by N.J. Attorney General Stuart Rabner issued to municipal officials Rabner said that if they conduct ceremonies for opposite-sex couples they must also perform civil unions.
In a separate communication to local officials John M. Carbone, an attorney representing county clerks and surrogates in all 21 New Jersey counties, advises "Either do marriages and civil unions, or do nothing."
Under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination any official who performs ceremonies for opposite-sex couples but refuses to conduct civil unions could be removed from office and subjected to fines beginning at $10,000 for the first offense Rabner said.
The civil union law was the 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 law 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.
©365Gay.com 2007

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:43 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 3, 2007 - 12:30 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Supporters of same-sex marriage handed a defeat in the legislature Tuesday vowed on Wednesday that they are far from throwing in the towel - and helping lead the attack on a proposed amendment to ban gay weddings is the state's new governor.
While outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was jubilant over Tuesday's vote, incoming Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick (D) called the it "shocking".
"I think it is important that we understand what we are fighting about," Patrick said on Wednesday.
"There are constitutional principles here and precedents that, if not checked, are dangerous ones. The notion of using the popular ballot initiative to insert discrimination into the constitution is not something that I think reflects well on us as a people and as a commonwealth, and I'm going to do what I can to stop that as this measure continues to move through the process."
The proposed amendment must receive a second vote of approval this year in order to go on the 2008 ballot.
On Tuesday, lawmakers meeting in a joint session of the House and Senate approved the measure, then voted to reconsider it, and then voted to approve it again.
Needing only 50 votes to pass it advanced on a 62 - 131 vote.
Patrick said Wednesday he was surprised by the Supreme Judicial Court ruling last week that, although saying it did not have the power to force the legislature to vote found that the legislature had an obligation to bring the amendment to a vote.
The governor-elect was out of the country when the ruling came down. Before he left, he said Wednesday, he believed a plan was in place to defeat the amendment.
"There was a strategy in place when I left the country. That strategy changed while I was away, and I did what I could before I had any power to influence these outcomes."
But, Patrick, who will be sworn in as governor on Thursday, said "This fight isn't over."
That pledge was echoed by House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D) who tried to get the legislature on Tuesday to reconsider its vote.
"This initiative petition is offensive and deplorable," DiMasi said in a statement.
©365Gay.com 2007

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:41 AM

by The Canadian Press
Posted: January 3, 2007 - 11:00 am ET
(Toronto, Ontario) An Ontario boy can legally have two mothers and a father, the province's highest court ruled Tuesday.
The same-sex partner of the child's biological mother went to court seeking to also be declared a mother of the boy.
After hearing arguments in 2003, Superior Court Justice David Aston dismissed the application saying he didn't have the jurisdiction to rule in the case.
Court was told the child has three parents: his biological father and mother (identified in court documents as B.B. and C.C., respectively) and C.C.'s partner, the appellant A.A.
A.A. and C.C. have been in a stable same-sex union since 1990. In 1999, they decided to start a family with the assistance of their friend B.B.
The two women would be the primary caregivers of the child, but they believed it would be in the child's best interests that B.B. remain involved in the child's life.
The boy refers to A.A. and C.C. as his mothers.
Aston indicated that had he thought he had jurisdiction, he would have made ruled that A.A. was also the boy's mother.
``The child is a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family that meets his every need,'' the decision reads.
``The applicant has been a daily and consistent presence in his life. She is fully committed to a parental role. She has the support of the two biological parents who themselves recognize her equal status with them.''
A.A. and C.C. did not apply for an adoption order because, if they did so, B.B. would lose his status under the Child and Family Services Act.
``Perhaps one of the greatest fears faced by lesbian mothers is the death of the birth mother,'' the appeal court heard. ``Without a declaration of parentage or some other order, the surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child, such as critical decisions about health care.''
The Children's Law Reform Act does not reflect current society, the appeal court judges ruled.
``There is no doubt that the Legislature did not foresee for the possibility of declarations of parentage for two women, but that is a product of the social conditions and medical knowledge at the time,'' they wrote. ``The Legislature did not turn its mind to that possibility, so that over 30 years later the gap in the legislation has been revealed.''
As a result, the statute does not provide for the best interests of the child in this case, the judges said.
``The Act does not deal with, nor contemplate, the disadvantages that a child born into a relationship of two mothers, two fathers or as in this case two mothers and one father might suffer.''
The Attorney General for Ontario did not chose to intervene to support the legislation, the ruling noted.
©365Gay.com 2007

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:39 AM

By Rex Wockner
Published: January 4, 2007

Sixty-one percent of Mexicans “oppose a constitutional amendment that would permit same-sex marriage,” a new Parametría poll has found. Seventeen percent support the idea and 14 percent lack an opinion. Forty-one percent “oppose a law that would allow same-sex partners to legally register and obtain some benefits and rights.” Twenty-eight percent support a civil-union law and 28 percent have no opinion. Pollsters questioned 1,200 adults. The margin of error was 2.8 percent.
The Mexico City Legislative Assembly passed a local civil-union law for same-sex couples Nov. 9. The vote was 43-17 with 5 abstentions. The statute, which will take effect by March, grants spousal rights in areas such as property, pensions, inheritance, medical decisions and co-parenting. Heterosexual couples and nonsexual couples also can register under the law.
The state of Coahuila, which borders Texas, also is considering a civil-union bill. The legislation, introduced by the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, is supported by Gov. Humberto Moreira, who said “it would be discriminatory not to ... respect the rights of every person regardless of sexual affiliation.”
Other Latin American localities with same-sex civil-union laws include Buenos Aires, Argentina; Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; and the Argentine province of Río Negro.
Antigay American Episcopalians Go Nigerian
Twenty-one Episcopal churches around the U.S. have disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church USA, part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and linked up instead with the powerful, antigay Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola. The U.S. parishes, now members of Akinola’s ultraconservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America, oppose the Episcopal Church’s consecration of openly gay New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson and its support for blessing same-sex relationships. Akinola’s growing power—Nigeria has more Anglicans than any other nation except England—is seen as a possible threat to the supremacy of the Anglican Communion’s traditional spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury in England.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, Akinola asked: “Why didn’t God make a lion to be a man’s companion? Why didn’t he make a tree to be a man’s companion? Or better still, why didn’t he make another man to be man’s companion? So even from the creation story, you can see that the mind of God, God’s intention, is for man and woman to be together.” He also said that the only time he knowingly shook hands with an openly gay man, he was horrified and “jumped back” as soon as the man came out to him.
Akinola supports draconian antigay legislation that is expected to pass Nigeria’s National Assembly this year. The measure seemingly could outlaw such things as belonging to a gay group, reading a gay book, watching a gay movie, visiting a gay Internet site, and socializing by two or more gay people. For good measure, the bill also bans same-sex marriage. Violating the proposed law would result in up to five years in prison.
The bill states, in part: “Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria. ... Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.” Gay sex already is illegal in Nigeria. It is punished with death in Muslim areas of the nation and with jail time in Christian sections.
Akinola denies he has violated Anglican rules prohibiting bishops from controlling parishes outside a bishop’s territory. He says the convocation was formed to serve theologically conservative Nigerian Anglicans living in the U.S. and that it then began attracting conservative American Episcopalians.
The Anglican Communion is a confederation of national churches that have a total of 77 million members, more than 15 million of them in Nigeria. There are 26 million Anglicans in England, 8 million in Uganda, 5 million in Sudan, 4 million in Australia, 2.5 million in Kenya, 2.4 million in the United States, 2 million in Tanzania, 800,000 in Canada, half a million in New Zealand, and smaller numbers in numerous other nations.
Franco’s Gay Victims May Be Compensated
Spanish Justice Minister Juan Fernando López Aguilar has proposed that gays who were jailed, tortured or sent to mental hospitals during the 1939-1975 rule of dictator Francisco Franco be compensated with a one-time payment of $15,777 and a monthly pension of $1,052, Britain’s The Independent reported Dec. 28. Many Franco-era gays receive only a small retirement pension because the regime branded them as criminals and prevented them from working, leaving them unable to pay into the system.
Incarcerated gays were often “treated” with electric shocks and forced to watch straight pornography. Lower-class gays without “connections” were particularly vulnerable to institutionalization. The abuse didn’t stop until the late 1970s, and the men’s criminal records were not purged until 2001.
Nowadays, Spain is one of the world’s gay-friendliest nations. Full same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005.
Police, Council Pay Off Harassed Christians
The Wyre Borough Council in northwest England and the Lancashire Constabulary, the county police force, have paid $19,500 plus costs to settle a lawsuit filed by an antigay Christian couple. Joe and Helen Roberts had asked the council to display Christian pamphlets alongside its gay-rights literature. After the council refused, Mrs. Roberts phoned bureaucrats and called homosexuality “morally wrong.” The council reported the call to the police who then went to the couple’s home in Fleetwood and interrogated them for 80 minutes.
The Robertses filed suit, claiming their rights to religious belief and freedom of expression had been trampled. The council and the police eventually agreed and, in late December, apologized for the incident and settled with the couple in advance of a High Court hearing.
Joe Roberts called the settlement “a great victory for Christianity, for civil liberties and for anyone who wants to express an opinion which may go against what the political-correctness brigade think.”Gloria Trevi, released from jail, makes comeback
“Mexico’s Madonna,” flamboyant gay icon Gloria Trevi, has made a full comeback with her public, including hordes of gay fans, since being released from prison in late 2004. Her rebound single, “Everybody’s Watching Me,” hit No. 1 in Mexico. It chronicles a gay man’s emergence from the closet. The album, How the Universe Was Born, went platinum in the United States.
In 2000, Trevi, her manager and a backup singer were arrested in Brazil on charges of sexually molesting young girls they allegedly enticed into their inner circle by dangling promises of stardom. Following extradition to Mexico and nearly five years behind bars, Trevi, 38, was acquitted of rape, kidnapping and corrupting minors.
-Assistance: Bill Kelley

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:37 AM

January 2, 2007 - 7:06 PM


The federal partnership law legally recognises same-sex marriages throughout Switzerland (Keystone)

The first same-sex partnership was registered on Tuesday at a register office in Ticino after the entry into force of the new federal partnership act.
As of January 1, gay and lesbian couples are able to have their civil union officially recognised thanks to a new federal law passed in 2005.

According to the Italian-language RSI public radio station, the couple who registered their partnership have lived together for 30 years but wish to remain anonymous."The ceremony was moving and very well organised by the register officer," said Donatella Zappa, from the pro-gay marriage association "Imbarco immediato", who attended the ceremony."The couple who got married today are already quite old and have been looking forward nervously to what is the crowning moment of their lives," said Zappa.

Rights

The federal partnership law, which came into force on January 1, legally recognises same-sex marriages throughout Switzerland. Under the law, same-sex couples will be able to register their partnership at a registry office.The civil union between gay couples remains distinct from marriages by name, but the new law means gay couples will have the same pension, inheritance and tax rights and obligations. Foreign partners will receive residency. But the naturalisation process will not be made easier as with married couples.Adoption and fertility treatment is forbidden and partnerships can only be dissolved by a court.swissinfo with agencies



KEY FACTS

In June 2005 the Swiss voted in a national referendum by 58 per cent in favour of registered same-sex partnerships, which the "yes" campaign described as "wonderful".
To register their partnership, couples have to be over the age of 18, not already married or linked by a registered same-sex civil union, and not be parents. One of the two partners must be Swiss or have Swiss residence.
The union is recorded in front of a registry officer, but each partner does not have to say the traditional "I do".
Registered partnerships have existed in Geneva since 2001.

RELATED SITE

Pink Cross - gay association (German, French) (http://www.pinkcross.ch/index.html)
URL of this story: http://194.6.181.127/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=7396788

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:35 AM

(AP) NEWARK Less than two weeks after New Jersey adopted civil unions for same-sex couples, a niche industry catering to celebrations for gay couples is poised for its collective phone to ring.But those wedding planners and other vendors may be in for a long wait. That's due in part to the state's approval of a law that may have gone too far for critics of same-sex unions, but which did not grant the recognition sought by advocates of full-fledged gay marriage."People who can get married usually tend to associate that event with big celebratory party like a reception," said David Buckel, an attorney whose lawsuit pushing for gay marriage led to the civil unions. "We're finding that in large measure, that's not how people are viewing a civil union or a civil unionization. It just doesn't feel too celebratory to not be able to call it a 'marriage."'Passed this month by the Legislature and signed Dec. 21 by Gov. Jon Corzine, the law gives same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage. New Jersey joins Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.New Jersey's law came in response to an October state Supreme Court ruling that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.Gay couples welcomed the law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.Saundra Toby-Heath and Alicia Heath-Toby, one of the seven couples who sued for the right to marry, are now talking about plans for a civil union ceremony. But the couple, together for 18 years on Jan. 1, is not sure what form it will take.After a religious commitment ceremony in September 1999, they threw a bash in the backyard of their Newark home for 100 people. It took six months to plan."The ceremony that me and my wife had was heavenly," said Heath-Toby, 44. "It was something very, very special."Even though they can now take another step legally, they aren't sure their celebration would include more than 10 people. Toby-Heath, 53, calls civil unions an "unnamed species.""It's something," she said. "I almost feel like we were cheated from the wonderful feeling that 'marriage' brings."M.W. Savant, whose Edison, N.J.-based company, savvyplanners.com, specializes in same-sex ceremonies, said the sentiment is not surprising."So many people are tired of having to half embrace their relationship," Savant said. "There is a good number of people who are still holding out, waiting for 100 percent marriage equality."Not so for Marc Figueroa, a 31-year-old teacher, who proposed to his partner after the October Supreme court ruling.The pair, who live in Hackensack, have hired Savant to help plan their September 2007 wedding. They're envisioning 120 to 150 people, probably on a yacht sailing on the Hudson River, and expect a burgeoning gay wedding industry as others follow suit."It's going to be huge," Figueroa said. "And we have a lot of friends who will start doing the same things very shortly."The men are happy for the new legal bond they'll have, even though some of their gay friends are down on the term "civil union" and want marriage."We're ecstatic," Figueroa said. "For us, we said we're fine with civil unions."Even before the new law was passed in New Jersey, florist Lynn Jawitz took out ads in gay publications to promote her New York-based company, Florisan."We wanted to be really well positioned in a business sense when this market broke and we couldn't be happier," she said.Jawitz has received some inquiries from same-sex couples about events, but no work so far.She's not the only one.Carol Beaugard advertises her Montclair, N.J.-based wedding planning company, Affairs of Distinction, on a Web site aimed at couples planning gay weddings. She also has fielded some calls, but hasn't been hired to plan any same-sex celebrations. Nevertheless, she expects that to soon change."People within the gay community are really looking for planners who are sensitive to their needs and have a deep level of respect," she said.Buckel, the attorney, said gay couples shouldn't dismiss the idea of civil unions even if they are dissatisfied with the law. It does offer new protections, including inheritance, medical decision-making and alimony rights, among others.Still, Buckel said, what the measure means for celebrations isn't clear."It'll be another day, a half day off from work and they'll wait for a day to call it a marriage and have their big celebration with family," he said.
(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:33 AM

By DENNIS TATZ
The Patriot Ledger

BOSTON - Gay marriage opponents are a step closer to getting an opportunity to end future same sex unions in Massachusetts.Lawmakers closed the legislative session yesterday with a vote that advances a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said following the vote that support for marriage equality continues to grow.‘‘Our opponents’ margin of victory was small, and we will soon have a governor who supports our rights,’’ Swislow said. ‘‘Marriage equality has brought a great deal of good to this state, its families and its communities. We will not give up what we have fought so hard to attain.’’Massachusetts became the first state to allow gays to wed in 2004. So far, more than 8,000 same sex couples have married.Supporters of gay marriage rights will now set their sights on lining up enough votes to make sure the next constitutional convention defeats the measure so it won’t be placed on the 2008 ballot for voters to consider, Swislow said.Opponents praised lawmakers for allowing the measure to proceed. Although legislators voted 134 to 62 against the amendment, only 50 votes were needed.The state’s highest court ruled last week that it was powerless to force the Legislature to vote on a proposed amendment prohibiting gay marriage. But the Supreme Judicial Court said lawmakers were shirking their constitutional duties for not even allowing a vote to occur.
var tcdacmd="sa=a;sz=3;ad";
Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, who opposed the amendment, said it violates the constitutional rights of a particular group of citizens.‘‘I’m disappointed it’s moving forward,’’ Bradley said last night.Dennis Tatz may be reached at dtatz@ledger.com .

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:30 AM

Hiller Instinct: Same-sex showdown
Give state legislators credit: under pressure to side step the state constitution, they chose instead to follow it.
Reported by:
Andy Hiller

Their vote respected all of us -- supporters and opponents of gay marriage. Instead of the hypocrisy we've seen so much of, today we finally saw some honesty.
Take the SJC's unanimous and straightforward ruling last month that legislators had to vote. But when the court said it couldn't order them to, that was more a profile in cowardice than courage.
Because when the same court authorized gay marriage three years ago, the legislature was given six months to change the law.
"Let the people vote," Governor Romney said. "Let the people vote!"
And while Gov. Mitt Romney was right about the legislature's responsibility, he was wrong to manipulate the emotions surrounding the issue and divide the state as governor, hoping it would help make him president.
Governor-elect Deval Patrick was wrong, too.
"Above all, this is a question of conscience," Governor-elect Deval Patrick said just before the vote.
Not so. Above all, this is a question of whether we're ruled by laws or by personal convictions, no matter how sincerely held.
"Marriage equality is with us and has been with us now for a couple of years, and the sky has not fallen, and Western civilization hasn't crumbled," Governor-elect Patrick said.
Civil rights are surely fundamental in a just society, but they come from the constitution, not before it.
Today, the rule of law trumped the rule of opinion, as it should.
But, until today, it wasn't clear whether it would.
I'm Andy Hiller, and that's my instinct.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 6:28 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 2, 2007 - 5:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) An attempt to overturn today's vote approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage ended in failure late Tuesday afternoon.
Lawmakers earlier in the day approved the measure with 61 votes in favor and 132 opposed. It needed only 50 votes to pass.
Supporters of same-sex marriage then moved to hold a vote to reconsider the approval and the joint session of the House and Senate, called a Constitutional Convention, ten adjourned to allow members to lobby support for the second vote.
But opponents of gay marriage picked up an additional vote. The second round was 62 in favor.
The proposed amendment needs to be approved again in the new session of the legislature in order to go on the 2008 ballot. Supporters of same-sex marriage say they will concentrate their efforts on the next round.
"Today, two-thirds of the Massachusetts Legislature voted against a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but it wasn't enough," said MassEquality campaign director Marc Solomon. "A minority of legislators, emboldened by our opponents' endless attacks, have voted to push this discriminatory amendment closer to a public vote."
Today's convention came amidst a huge lobbying effort by people on both sides of the issue.
This morning, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick called for the chamber to adjourn without voting.
In a meeting with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D) Patrick called same-sex marriage a matter of civil rights and the vote a "question of conscience".
"Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth," Patrick said in a statement distributed to lawmakers.
"For practical reasons as well, its time to move on," the statement said. "Whatever ones views of marriage equality, all can agree that we have far more pressing issues before the Legislature and the Commonwealth. It serves no public interest to focus more time and attention on this issue when there are under-served and under-performing schools, an infrastructure showing signs of sustained neglect, gun and gang violence on the rise, jobs and people leaving the state, a growing homeless population, soaring health care costs, a looming deficit and a score of other serious challenges crying out for the attention and the creativity of the government and the people. We cannot in good conscience ask these unmet needs to wait while a few individuals try to insert discrimination into our Constitution.
"I favor ending this petition initiative promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it. If the Constitutional Convention chooses to vote on the merits, I want to be utterly clear that I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong."
Outside the State House several thousand people on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue held rallies.
The proposed amendment needed only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate. It requires the same number of votes in a second constitutional convention in the new session for it to be put to voters in 2008.
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
Twice before lawmakers adjourned without voting.
Last week the state's highest court told Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and other supporters of the amendment that it lacked the power to force lawmakers to vote on the issue but also said that the legislature had an obligation to bring the amendment to a vote.
Following the Supreme Judicial court's ruling Romney upped the pressure on the Legislature threatening to withhold pay raises for lawmakers if they fail to vote. The threat has little substance however. Romney leaves office on Wednesday.
VoteOnMarriage, the umbrella group behind the amendment went to federal court accusing the lawmakers of violating their constitutional duty.
The suit names all 109 lawmakers who voted in favor of recessing and seeks $5 million in damages. Last Friday, 14 of the lawmakers shot back sending a countersuit to VoteOnMarriage if the organization does not withdraw its court action.
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.
©365Gay.com 2007

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 8:01 AM

Czech Civil Partnerships Gain In Popularity
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 2, 2007 - 9:00 pm ET
(Prague) In the six months since civil partnerships became legal in the Czech Republic more than 200 gay and lesbian couples have exchanged vows Prague Radio reported on Tuesday.
LGBT civil rights leaders said they were pleasantly surprised by the numbers. Jiri Hromada, of the Gay Initiative, said he had expected much less interest.
The legislation passed the lower house in December, 2005 and the upper house a month later but was vetoed by President Vaclav Klaus in February 2006
Last March Parliament overrode the veto, allowing the law to take effect July 1.
It made the Czech Republic the first post-communist country in central Europe to legalize gay and lesbian partnerships.
The law allows couples who register their partnership with authorities to have inheritance and health care rights similar to those granted now to heterosexual married couples.
The law, however, does not allow marriage or adoption of children by same-sex partners.
Recent public opinion polls show most Czechs support same-sex couples having the option of registering their partnerships
The Czech Republic joined the European Union in 2004.
©365Gay.com 2007

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 7:57 AM

Supporters, Opponents Rally At Statehouse
POSTED: 12:33 pm EST January 2, 2007
UPDATED: 6:57 pm EST January 2, 2007
BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers voted twice on Tuesday to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The vote is a critical step toward putting the measure the state's 2008 ballot.
The proposed amendment would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, effectively outlawing gay marriage in Massachusetts.
"We are very, very pleased. We're excited and I again reiterate that this is a victory for democracy. It is a victory for the peoples' right to petition. It a victory for our Constitution -- the oldest living constitution in the world has been reaffirmed," said Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
"This devastatingly bad news for us. It is travesty that the Legislature would vote to take away the rights of so many citizens in this state and deny their families protections that are critically important and that they desperately need. But it is not over," said Arline Isaacson of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
The Legislature has twice put off voting on the controversial issue by adjourning without taking a vote after state residents collected petitions asking that the question be put to the voters as a ballot question. The supporters of the gay marriage ban amendment collected signatures from 170,000 people in an effort to get the question on the 2008 ballot.
On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers voted to keep the proposal alive, while 132 voted to kill it. The proposed amendment needs 50 or more votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to get on the 2008 ballot. Late Tuesday afternoon lawmakers agreed to reconsider the vote, but a second vote still gave the proposal enough support to advance it to the next session.
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, a vocal supporter of gay marriage, was at the Statehouse on Tuesday to meet with House Speaker Sal DiMasi, hoping to stall the vote.
"I hope by whatever means are appropriate, the constitutional convention today ends this debate. Marriage equality is with us and has been with us now for a couple of years and the sky has not fallen," Patrick said.
After the vote, Patrick said he was disappointed by the vote and vowed to overturn it next year.
"We believe that we have the argument on our side, we have a governor on our side. We have a Speaker of the House that is firmly committed to keeping this off the ballot and we are going to work with some like-minded people with a very optimistic message that if it is that close, we can do it," said gay marriage supporter Rep. Michael Festa.
Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said lawmakers had a constitutional obligation to vote on the proposed amendment, but added that the court didn't have the authority to force another legislative body to take a vote.
Gay-marriage supporters are concerned that if the issue goes to a statewide vote, gay marriage will become illegal in the state. Opponents say state residents have a right to vote and want the question to be put on a ballot in 2008.
"I think that if the people of Massachusetts had the right to vote, they can have the knowledge and the foresight to decide this issue for themselves. Let the people vote," said Paul Ferro, who opposes gay marriage.
"The rights of minority groups should never be voted on by a majority of people. It's just not equality," said Ryan Brown, who supports gay marriage.
"It is a fundamental to be able to vote. It is the very thing that got the representatives and the senators into the Statehouse," said Kyle Burns, who opposes gay marriage.
"Civil rights should not be subject to a vote. If in 1954, the citizens of Kansas had been asked whether integration of the schools was appropriate, they would have voted resoundingly 'no.' And I would have ended up going to segregated schools my whole life," said the Rev. William Sinkford, who supports gay marriage.
The amendment still needs to be approved by the 2007-2008 Legislature before it can be added to the ballot.

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:43 PM

Dec 26, 2006

By JEFF ADELSON
Sun staff writer
FYI: A registryIf Gainesville were to establish a domestic partnership registry, here are benefits that couples might stand to gain by registering:
The right to make a hospital visit as a family member.
The right to be a part of medical decisions involving your partner.
It could provide documentation to allow domestic partner benefits.
The right to help care for your partner's dependent child.
The right to be considered "part of the family" when deciding who is eligible for a "family rate."Terry Fleming and his partner have been together for nine years, but in the eyes of state and federal agencies, their relationship might as well not exist.The same-sex couple, unable to marry, is denied benefits ranging from hospital visitation to shared insurance benefits at work, said Fleming, vice president of the Human Rights Council of North Central Florida, a gay and lesbian rights organization.But that could change, somewhat, with a proposal under consideration by the Gainesville City Commission.A plan to establish a "domestic partnership registry" in Gainesville — which would provide a record of partnerships for same-sex partners as well as some benefits — is being discussed by Gainesville's Equal Opportunity Committee. The City Commission could vote on the proposal in the months ahead."When issues of justice and fairness and equality come to light in society, and where our citizens — people in the city of Gainesville — are impacted by that, I believe we have the right, and actually in some instances the obligation, to address that and to provide the full level of equality that we can," said Commissioner Craig Lowe, who chairs the Equal Opportunity Committee and is gay.Lowe's committee has been discussing the issue for about a year, largely because scheduling issues have kept commissioners from meeting some months, he said. A recommendation laying out the details of a registry is expected to reach the commission in early 2007.The domestic partnership registry envisioned by the committee would provide a means for same-sex couples to create an official record of their relationship. While targeting same-sex couples, the registry may also be open to opposite sex couples, though they have other means for legal recognition. One of the topics being discussed by the committee is what couples would be eligible.Being registered would entitle a couple to certain rights, such as visitation rights at hospitals, that can be defined on the municipal level.There are about 70 municipalities around the country that offer domestic partner registries, including West Palm Beach, Miami Beach, Key West and Broward County in Florida.In Florida and much of the country, these rights cover an extremely narrow spectrum, as most of the legal benefits bestowed on spouses, such as tax benefits, are set at the state or federal levels.The registry could also be useful in administering programs offered by some employers, including the city of Gainesville, Alachua County and the University of Florida, that provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners just as they are offered to employees' spouses. When UF offered benefits to same-sex partners last year, the administration came under criticism for forcing partners to swear they were in a sexual relationship, a requirement some saw as an invasion of privacy.Lowe said that although the benefits were not the same as those offered to married couples, they were the best the city could do."If I could as a city commissioner, or we as a commission could provide full marriage equality, that's what we'd be doing," Lowe said.Some national organizations see the issue in a similar light."It's not a very comparable alternative to marriage," said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization advocating for gay and lesbian rights. "The rights that cities can provide to spouses, even married spouses, is very limited. Those rights are all federal and often states' rights."Still, the organization is supportive of efforts to establish registries as a way for cities to offer what rights they can and to put pressure on legislatures, Evans said. This is particularly true in states, such as Florida, that are unlikely to pass laws allowing civil unions or marriage, she said."I don't think anybody thinks Tallahassee is in any position to be passing a statewide type of law like New Jersey or California," Evans said.Because domestic partnerships are not on the same footing as marriage or civil unions, which typically provide the same legal rights as a marriage under a different name, they often do not generate as much controversy as other laws dealing with same-sex relationships.John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy Council and the leading figure behind a 2008 referendum to have an amendment barring gay marriage added to the state constitution, said it was unclear what his organization's response would be to such a registry. The registries seem "innocuous" because they don't provide any rights to partners that couldn't be established through a contract, said Stemberger, who admitted he was unfamiliar with the concept.In addition, because the registry did not confer anything rising to the level of marriage, such partnerships would not be prohibited by his organization's proposed marriage amendment, the Orlando lawyer said.Though the city's discussions of the registry began during the lull in gay marriage debates that followed the 2004 election, the topic is poised to reach commissioners as the issue is again rising to prominence. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine recently signed into law legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions that provide gay and lesbian couples the same state rights in New Jersey as married heterosexual couples.Locally, Alachua County Commission Chairwoman Paula DeLaney called on her colleagues to hold a robust debate of gay marriage in her inaugural speech earlier this year.The timing of the different initiatives was coincidental, Lowe said, but he noted the issues have been gaining prominence in recent years."I think we might be coming up on a crest on the issue," Lowe said. "When people see how it's involved and how a same-sex marriage is not threatening to a traditional marriage."The proposal is expected to receive a generally warm reception from the City Commission, though some said they were uncomfortable with the plan.Commissioner Ed Braddy said by extending partnership rights, the city was interfering in issues best left to the state government, and argued a system in which municipalities set up differing rules for recognizing partnerships would create problems."It's not a federal issue, it's not a municipal issue," Braddy said. "It is and has been a state issue, and I don't see any reason to complicate that."While he said he did not favor measures that change the definition of marriage, Braddy said rhetoric opposing these measures was often overly dramatic."The institution of marriage itself is an ancient institution that has served civilization well, so I'm not anxious to tinker with it," Braddy said. "At the same time, I don't think civilization will collapse if we do."Although Fleming said he and his partner would sign up for the registry, he acknowledged they would not do so believing they were granted true marriage equality. But, establishing some rights at the local level would be extremely important, both for the benefits it would offer and the symbolic recognition of equality, Fleming said."This is about changing the heart of America to show the importance of civil rights for everyone," he said.Jeff Adelson can be reached at 352-374-5095 or adelsoj@ gvillesun.com

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:39 PM

by Bob Roehr
2006-12-27
POLITICS
The kaleidoscope of public and political personalities seemed to spin faster and more bizarrely throughout 2006 than one could have possibly imagined at the start of the year, with the emphasis on downfall. It once again proved the dictum that truth is stranger than fiction.
Even before Congressional Republicans took their Iraq induced drubbing in the November elections, their House leaders had been done in by their own overreaching or incompetence.
Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay ( Texas ) threw in the towel, resigning in April to fight corruption charges, but it was too late for Republicans to hold on to his seat. He was succeeded by the preternaturally tanned John Boeher from the “Sun Belt” state of Ohio.
DeLay had been pulling the strings of front man Dennis Hastert ( Illinois ) as Speaker of the House and when left to his own devices, Hastert quickly proved his ineptitude in managing the faux scandal of Mark Foley and Congressional pages. Hastert, as Speaker, was essentially gone even before the elections.
And speaking of Foley, the Floridian resigned his seat at the end of September, almost immediately after it became public knowledge that he had exchanged salacious electronic messages with former congressional pages.
It turns out that electrons, not bodily fluids, were about the only things that Foley exchanged with the men who were young ( but not illegally so ) and only after they had left the page program and returned home. It was a little creepy and very pathetic, but to hear some of our Democratic “friends” in full campaign mode spin it, nubile pages were being molested in the very antechambers of the Capitol Building.
Oh, and soon after resigning, while hiding out at a rehab facility, Foley acknowledged through his lawyer the open secret known in all of Washington and much of Florida—that he is gay. Otherwise, he has had the good sense to shut up and stay out of the public eye. Let’s hope he is not writing a “tell all” book.
The scene only got weirder a month later when Pastor Ted Haggard was outed for using crystal meth and the services of masseur and ex-escort Michael Jones. The father of five and evangelical superstar tried copping a plea to only the former but nobody bought it and he was quickly separated from his Colorado Springs megachurch and vanished.
That scandal eclipsed the one involving Claude Allen. One of the most prominent African-American social conservatives around, the former number two man at the Department of Health and Human Services was sitting in the presidential box during the State of the Union address and a few days later quietly resigned from his White House position as domestic policy chief, for “personal reasons.”
Allen had been moonlighting, supplementing his income with a sophisticated ruse that involved stores giving him cash back for items he did not purchase. Then he was busted, on videotape. It turns out the scam was something that Allen had done a couple of dozen times. He eventually pled guilty in the summer to a lesser charge and was sentenced to probation.
All those hijinks might make one forget that the purpose of Congress is to pass legislation. So, social conservatives again trotted out an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban the specter of gay marriage. And President George W. Bush again pandered to that base in urging passage of the amendment.
It didn’t make any difference. In June, the Senate again said no, by about the same margin as two years earlier, despite Republican pick-ups in that chamber. The House went through similar motions a month later.
Reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act ( RWCA ) to better reflect the changing nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic was the ongoing congressional soap opera for many within the gay community. Hopes for a spring passage of the bipartisan, bicameral legislation were quickly dashed. Multiple subsequent revisions fared no better.
The main issue is that the caseload and problems continue to grow but the federal money to meet those needs does not. Any changes in RWCA would take money from the cities that were first and hardest hit by the epidemic and shift it to areas where it hit later, primarily the South.
The political, medical and moral solution is to increase the pot of money so that nobody loses and all AIDS services are adequately funded. Unfortunately, nobody has managed to pull that off.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act ( ENDA ) is been the centerpiece of the Human Rights Campaign’s legislative agenda. But they didn’t even bother to have the bill introduced in this session of Congress.
Legislation to repeal the anti-gay military policy known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has garnered 120 co-sponsors in the House, though a companion bill was not introduced in the Senate.
Democratic success in November, seizing control of both houses of Congress albeit by slim margins, has raised expectations that LGBT concerns will be more fully addressed over the next two years. While hearings are assured on several measures, passage of these bills is not.
In October, the retired Gerry Studds, D-Mass., the first openly gay member of Congress, died at the age of 69.
At the end of the year, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, was preparing to retire. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was preparing for his elevation to chairman of the financial services committee and active engagement with that industry.
Other key electoral successes for the LGBT community throughout the year included the elevation of Christine Quinn to speaker of the City Council of New York City, the second most powerful office in that city; the landslide re-election of David Cicilline as mayor of Providence, R.I.; and the election of Patricia Todd to the Alabama legislature, despite attempts by some local Democrats to overturn her primary victory.
RELATIONSHIPS
The status of LGBT relationships absolutely dominated the news throughout the year, with some development popping up every week. While much of what occurred on marriage was discouraging, just about everything short of using that word seemed to be to be positive.
The toehold of marriage equality continued to hold in Massachusetts, where efforts by social conservatives to amend the state constitution were stymied by the hard political work of LGBT advocates and their allies. A number of political foes were picked off in the Massachusetts Democratic primary and the number of pro-gay politicians continues to inch upwards.
The biggest change in the coming year will be that Governor Mitt Romney, who has made antigay rhetoric the centerpiece of his pitch to social conservatives in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, will be succeeded by Democrat Deval Patrick, a leading advocate of equality for gays. Survival of marriage seems assured.
Neighboring Connecticut had enacted domestic partnership legislation the year before that offered all of the benefits of marriage to gays but not the name. In July, a judge ruled that was sufficient; “The equal protection clause does not forbid classification.” That ruling is under appeal.
Courts in New York, Washington state, and New Jersey issued legally similar rulings, smashing the hopes of those who long for full marriage equality but pushing those legislatures toward increased protections for gay relationships through civil unions and similar measures.
Maryland’s highest court heard similar arguments in December, but after the experience in other state courts, LGBT advocates were reluctant to get their hopes up. Most expect another ruling that grants most of the substance but not the language of marriage equality.
California remains the big prize. A series of laws over the years have granted most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. This year the legislature even passed a bill that added the word marriage, but it was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who argued that the matter was before the courts.
In July, a three-member appeals panel overruled a district judge who had found it a violation of the state constitution to discriminate against gays on the issue of marriage. The California Supreme Court likely will take up the appeal in 2007.
The effort to amend state constitutions to ban gay marriage, and often other forms of legal protection for same-sex relationships, appears to be losing momentum. LGBT advocates and allies succeeded in keeping such measures off the ballot in about ten states.
Eight states voted on such amendments in November, down from eleven two years ago. In seven states the votes passed those amendments, though by margins that were smaller than what was seen two years earlier. More importantly, Arizona became the first state to defeat such a proposal.
While in Congress, even President Bush’s election year pandering to social conservatives wasn’t enough to revive the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, which would deny marriage to gays. Even under a Republican majority, the Senate and House again both said no.
Nor did the courts let homophobic get in the way of fair rulings on matters of family law. The Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a regulatory policy that banned homosexuals from serving as foster parents, though politicians have vowed to enact a law reversing that.
A struggle over visitation rights with the daughter of a lesbian couple whose relationship was certified through a Vermont civil union before breaking up, bounced back and forth between courts in that state and Virginia until coming to closure in November.
The Virginia court agreed that under federal law, Vermont had jurisdiction. It was careful not to affirm the gay relationship, but it did take a small step toward normalizing the legal treatment of those disputes under standard legal practices.


What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:36 PM

December 21, 2006 3:11 p.m. EST
Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Staff Writer
Sacramento, CA (AHN) - California's Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving same-sex marriages.
California's top court have unanimously voted to address the issue as a whole, after a lower court ruled the state's anti-gay marriage laws were unconstitutional. The ruling was overturned by an appellate court later.
The Court will hear six cases on the matter, yet declined to set a date for oral arguments at this time.
According to the Bay Area Reporter, the same-sex marriage cases stem from the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in February 2004 to order city officials to marry same-sex couples. Anti-gay groups and the state's attorney general filed suit to stop the proceedings, and the Supreme Court ruled Newsom lacked the authority to override the marriage statutes.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera says, "Marriage equality is the major civil rights issue of our time, and the state's highest court clearly recognizes it should have the final word on the issue in California."
"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. 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."

What do you think?

posted by Anthony  # 9:35 PM

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. S