Thursday, September 27, 2007

Civil Unions A Sham NJ Commission Told

Civil Unions A Sham NJ Commission Told
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: September 27, 2007 - 12:01 am ET

(New Brunswick, New Jersey) A commission created by lawmakers to examine the effectiveness of New Jersey's civil union law has been told that it is a sham leaving same-sex couples and their children with virtually no protections.

The state Supreme Court ruled last year that same-sex couples must have the rights as opposite-sex married couples but left it to the legislature to decide whether that should be done through marriage or civil unions.

Lawmakers chose civil unions, and gay and lesbian couples married in areas where same-sex marriage is legal, were regarded as in a civil union in New Jersey. The law went into effect in February. (story)

When the law was passed the legislature set up the committee to track the success of the law. Since then commissioners have heard from same-sex couples that the law has no teeth.

The most detailed accounts of the laws failings were presented Wednesday night when the commission held hearings in New Brunswick.

Thirty couples from across the state who have had civil unions presented a letter calling on the commission to go back to the legislature and recommend gay and lesbian couples be given full marriage.

Each of the couples said in the letter employers are refusing to recognize their civil unions.

"The failure of the civil union law has affected our lives deeply," the letter addressed to the commission as well as to Governor Corzine, Senate President Dick Codey and Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, said.

"It is not a political issue to us, but a personal one. The law's failure is harming not only us, but also the children of us who are parents. We cannot wait for the equality that the civil union law was supposed to provide, but does not," the letter said.

"The law's deprivation of equality has wreaked its worst havoc on same-sex families with fixed incomes, particularly in health care. Because employers in New Jersey are not recognizing civil unions on a consistent basis, the civil union law has, in effect, established one system of health care coverage for same-sex couples and another for straight couples."

Garden State Equality said the 30 couples are representative of the more than 300 same-sex couples who have complained to it that employers won't recognize their civil unions.

State records show that 1,514 same-sex couples have had civil unions since the law went into effect.

The Civil Union Review Commission also heard from Jodi Weiner who learned first-hand the difference the word "marriage" makes.

Weiner testified that her employer refused to grant her and her partner benefits under the civil union law, citing a loophole in the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

But when the company learned Weiner and her partner had actually gotten married in Massachusetts, the company relented and agreed to give the couple benefits.

"The difference between the words 'civil union' and the word 'marriage' could not be greater," said Weiner.

"The words 'civil union' were not good enough for us to get equality in New Jersey, but the word 'marriage' is. Members of the commission, and elected officials, we can all talk about how the civil union law is supposed to work just like marriage. But in my case and others, it doesn't work that way in the real world."

The commission also heard that civil unions are not working Vermont, the first state to allow them.

Responding to those who believe the civil union law will work if we just give it time, Beth Robinson, chair of Vermont Freedom to Marry and an attorney who has worked for years with same-sex couples in Vermont.

"Gay and lesbian couples in Vermont are still denied a host of critical legal protections that our laws provide to heterosexual, married couples," said Robinson.

"It's just not the case that as time passes, civil unions will achieve parity with marriage. Time cannot and does not mend the inequality inherent in the two separate institutions."

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the New England LGBT civil rights organization that won marriage equality in Massachusetts, told the commission that: "Despite the federal discrimination, we have found in Massachusetts that marriage has persuasive weight.

The commission will deliver a report to the legislatures on the effectiveness of civil unions. It is generally expected that the report will call for the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey.

Gov. Corzine has already stated that he believes it is only a matter of time before lawmakers revisit the law and change the term "civil union" to "marrriage".

©365Gay.com 2007

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Amicus Briefs Submitted in CA Marriage Case

Religious, Civil Rights, and Child advocacy Groups Support Same-Sex Couples in Legal Battle to Marry
(San Francisco, CA, September 26, 2007 In 30 amicus briefs submitted today to the California Supreme Court, scores of religious, civil rights, and child advocacy organizations, along with numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, urged the court to put an end to state laws that deny same-sex couples the protections of marriage.
"We are not treating all Californians equally if some can marry and others cannot," said Alice Huffman, President of the California Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "The law should protect all people equally, and all Californians should have the choice to marry," she said. "I am honored to join other civil rights leaders in calling on our state to end its ban on marriage for lesbian and gay couples."
The California NAACP joins more than 90 other civil rights organizations in filing amicus briefs. The organization's brief asks the Supreme Court to apply the Court's 1948 decision striking down laws banning interracial marriage to this current case. Longtime civil rights advocate Jon B. Eisenberg authored the NAACP's brief. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund also filed an amicus brief supporting same-sex couples, as did the Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic, in a brief comparing the arguments used in the past to defend laws barring interracial marriage with current arguments used to oppose marriage by same-sex couples.
In another brief, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Black Justice Coalition, and numerous other civil rights organizations argued that California courts should subject laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to the strictest level of constitutional review. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Equal Justice Society also submitted briefs urging the Court to strike down discriminatory marriage laws.
More than 60 Asian Pacific Islander groups, including the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, joined an additional brief describing the long history of discrimination against API communities with regard to marriage in California.
Briefs supporting the freedom to marry for same-sex couples were also filed by the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach, Oakland, as well as 14 other cities and counties.
The City of San Francisco, represented by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, is a party in the case. "I am proud to stand with an unprecedented array of community, religious and legal organizations to urge the court to strike down marriage laws that unconstitutionally discriminate against gay and lesbian partners," said Herrera. "The marriage exclusion has denied too much, to too many California families, for far too long. This broad consensus proves that the time has come for this discrimination to end."
Numerous bar associations also submitted briefs urging the Court to rule in favor of lesbian and gay couples, including the state's largest bar association, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the Bar Association of San Francisco, the Santa Clara County Bar Association, the Beverly Hills Bar Association, the California Women Lawyers, and others.
The American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the NASW California Chapter submitted a brief on the three decades of social science research that has consistently found that same-sex couples are just as capable of being good parents as different-sex couples and that their children are just as well adjusted.
A brief by leading California family law professors explained why barring same-sex couples from marriage harms families and violates the California constitution's equal protection guarantee.
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the California District of the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted a brief explaining how the children of same-sex couples are harmed when their parents are denied the ability to marry.
More than 400 local, regional, and national religious organizations and clergy also filed an interfaith brief arguing that the constitutional principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state require that same-sex couples must have equal access to civil marriage. Groups joining the brief include the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, Soka Gakkai International-USA, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the California Council of Churches, and California Faith for Equality.
The Rev. Neil Thomas, Chair of California Faith for Equality, said the brief "bears witness to our highest religious values, honoring love, equality and commitment in human relations. This is an important day. We are telling the California Supreme Court that many religious leaders and congregations in California and across the country support equality of all persons before the law."
Legal Momentum, Equal Rights Advocates, and the California Women's Law Center submitted a brief arguing that laws barring same-sex couples from marriage are based on gender stereotypes and unfairly discriminate based on sex.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the legal group that won the Massachusetts marriage case, filed a brief on behalf of the Equality Federation, a national coalition of state LGBT advocacy groups, arguing that a victory for equality and fairness for same-sex couples in California will improve the climate for LGBT people nationwide. Other LGBT groups that filed amicus groups include Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), Parents, Family, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), Family Pride, the Human Rights Campaign, Marriage Equality USA, Pride at Work, National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, SacLEGAL, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and Tom Homann Law Association.
Other briefs supporting the couples were filed by former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, UC Berkelely Law Professor Jesse Choper, Stanford Law Professors Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, Yale Law Professor Bill Eskridge, and University of Toronto Professor Noah Novgorodsky. The Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law also filed a brief describing the diversity of same-sex couples in California, which is home to more lesbian and gay couples than any other state.
The California Supreme Court is hearing the State's appeal of the March 2005 decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, which held that California's current statutory ban on marriage of same-sex couples violates the California Constitution. The California Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer's decision on October 5, 2006.
The plaintiffs in the case are 15 same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition, who are represented by lead counsel National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with co-counsel Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell. The City of San Francisco is also a plaintiff in the case, represented by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart. The briefing process concludes with responses to amicus briefs, which are due in October. The Court will set oral arguments at the conclusion of the briefing.
For a complete list of organizations filing amicus briefs supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, visit www.nclrights.org, www.aclu.org/caseprofiles, www.lambdalegal.org and www.eqca.org.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Christian Right Groom New Generation to Fight Gay Civil Rights

Christian Right Grooms New Generation Of Leaders To Fight Gay Civil Rights
by The Associated Press
Posted: September 23, 2007 - 1:00 pm ET
(Brandon, Florida) Headed into the 2008 election season, Christian conservatives are weary. Their movement has lost iconic leaders and the Republican presidential field is uninspiring. But they may have found hope in a trailer on the campus of Bell Shoals Baptist Church.
There, in Annex Room No. 3, Ruth Klingman nods as a leader in Florida's pro-family movement describes how gay marriage would open the door to other "aberrant forms of marriage." He holds up a printout of "polygamy pot lucks" as evidence.
Yes, Klingman says afterward, she will do her part to pass a constitutional amendment cementing marriage as a union between one man and one woman in this presidential swing state.
The first Family Impact Summit had minted a new activist - tangible results from three days of talks and workshops meant to replenish the roots of the Christian right.
"I just feel the opposition is growing so strong, I need to grow stronger," said Klingman, 34, who drove two hours from the one-stoplight town of Hawthorne to join activists in this Tampa suburb.
Organized by a scarcely known Tampa-area Christian group and ending Saturday, the summit sounded a back-to-basics theme: that evangelicals are called to be active citizens to combat threats from the left; that the work must involve not just national advocacy groups but local people and pastors; and the fight requires patience and persistence.
That last sentiment is a reminder of the challenges facing the Christian right.
Activists lost key allies in Congress when the Democrats retook Congress in 2006, movement pioneers Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy died this year, and there's apathy over the current crop of GOP presidential candidates.
Even this weekend's summit had its disappointments. Organizers had hoped up to 350 people would attend, laying the groundwork for a new Florida activist network.
But only 104, nearly all from Florida, had registered by Friday. A workshop on the basics of grass roots activism drew a handful of people - and one was a spy, an activist for Americans United for Separation of Church and State researching the opposition.
"There will be peaks and valleys, but I don't know if people understand the depth and breadth of our movement," said Gary Cass, former executive director at Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, which closed after the South Florida preacher fell ill.
"While we lament the loss of our leaders, their ideas that have been sewn into the larger church culture are just now starting to germinate and take root."
In a sign of just how much Christian activists want new blood, the summit drew some of the movement's heavyweights, including former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
However, the organizing group was a Tampa-area shoestring operation: the Community Issues Council, previously known for fighting a local bikini bar. The group's sole full-time employee is former state Christian Coalition operative Terry Kemple.
Such national-local partnerships are the way to go right now, Kemple said: "It means more troops on the ground and more feet on the streets.
"The old saying is all politics is local. It gets people involved."
The power of state-level organization was seen in 2004, when 11 states passed amendments prohibiting gay marriage and were credited with driving up GOP turnout.
The next marriage battleground is likely here in Florida. In the workshop that won Klingman over, John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council described the particulars: volunteers have collected 597,702 verified signatures toward the 611,009 needed to get an anti-gay marriage amendment on the fall 2008 ballot.
Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, said state and local groups tend to stick close to social issues that please religious conservatives. Many in the movement wrote off the national Christian Coalition as just another mainstream GOP group vying for power after it got involved in foreign policy and tax cuts, he said.
"Even if these local groups merely exist for one election cycle and go out of existence, they can still have a real impact turning people out to vote," Rozell said.
Beyond gay marriage, abortion remains the cornerstone issue for conservative Christians, the one that got evangelicals involved in contemporary politics in the first place, said Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention. The GOP needs to take that into account when picking its presidential hopeful, he warned.
"If the Republicans are foolish enough to pick a pro-choice candidate, they've given the Democratic Party a license to go hunting for evangelical votes," Land said.
There is only one GOP hopeful who fits that description: front-runner Rudy Giuliani.
A Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey this month showed white evangelical Protestants are the only major group that considers social issues like abortion and gay marriage very important to '08 presidential decision-making. But even among that voting bloc, social issues trailed the Iraq war, the economy and other domestic issues.
Religious conservatives also are watching whether a second-tier GOP candidate can break through, said Tom Minnery, a vice president of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family. But Minnery already is highlighting other races for the control of Congress and several state legislatures.
"Those down-ballot races will be significant, and I hope that will make people excited," he said.
In Tampa, most panels stuck to hot-button themes aimed at getting Florida conservatives involved in politics: The Homosexual Agenda. Life Issues. Redeeming the Culture Through the Legal System. The Church and Voter Registration. Several speakers highlighted threats from militant Islam, an increased emphasis in the movement.
If many of those topics seem familiar or tired to people outside the movement, their power to move people should not be underestimated, said John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum. The audience might just be activists-in-training in Florida this weekend, but it could be much larger in November 2008.
"Since the origins of the movement in 70s, obituaries have been written several times - and they've always turned out to be wrong," Green said. "This is very long-lived movement, in part because it has this capacity to renew itself at the state and local level."
©365Gay.com 2007

Why do we need ENDA?

Why Do We Need ENDA?
Here's another example...

Arthur Leonard

OK, you've been discharged by your employer, you're a gay man, you've suffered years of teasing, name-calling, pranks, and the like from fellow-employees, and you figure it's time for payback through a lawsuit. Problem: you live in Western Pennsylvania, a state with no law forbidding sexual orientation discrimination, and you were not employed in a municipality with a gay rights law either. What to do? Well, if you can credibly allege that your co-workers were inspired by your "effeminate mannerisms and appearance," perhaps you can use that new-fangled theory that's gained credence in many federal courts, that discrimination motivated by hostile reaction to the plaintiff's gender non-conformity, can be conceptualized as sex discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.
Sounds good, right? Well, somehow it didn't work for Brian Prowel, who suffered adverse summary judgment at the hands of U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry on September 13 in Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., 2007 WL 2702664 (W.D.Pa.). McVerry picked up on the rather constricted 3rd Circuit caselaw on this, expressed in Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2001), which had very similar facts to those alleged by Prowel. The 3rd Circuit was notably sympathetic to the plaintiff, and Judge McVerry makes sure to state in his conclusion that "the conduct Prowel apparently suffered at the hands of his co-workers was reprehensible," but McVerry rubs home the point more than once: Congress has not yet voted to ban sexual orientation discrimination, and as far as McVerry is concerned, that ends the question, since it seemed clear to him, based on the pleadings, that Prowel was attempting to bootstrap a sexual orientation claim under Title VII by arguing that he was being persecuted because of his effeminate manner, a theory that doesn't do well in the 3rd Circuit as a result of Bibby. (Based on the factual allegations, I think this claim would have most likely survived summary judgment in the 9th Circuit, and maybe several others.)
In particular, Judge McVerry, pointing out that Title VII is, after all, about discrimination, concluded that Prowel fell short in alleging the necessary facts to show that he was treated differently from other employees because he is a man. Not enough, said McVerry, for Prowel to allege that a woman with the same mannerisms would not have been treated as he was. Oh, no, in McVerry's view the appropriate "comparator" would be a butch lesbian. In other words, in order to state a claim here, Prowel would have to show that gender-non-conforming men are treated differently in that workplace from gender non-conforming women, otherwise he hasn't really alleged sex discrimination.
Under this theory, of course, one comes back to square one and the need for ENDA. Although some federal courts have been open to an expansive precedential reading of the plurality opinion in the Price Waterhouse case on sex stereotyping, by no means all are willing to follow down that path, and it is past time for federal statutory protection to be express. An overwhelming majority of the public tells public opinion pollsters that gay people should not have to suffer employment discrimination, and it's time for Congress to get with the program. Reports are that the House of Representatives may pass ENDA during this session, but there are few hopes that enough Senate Republicans will break ranks to provide the necessary 60 votes to conclude debate in the Senate, even were the bill to get through the committee process. And, of course, there is the likelihood that the resident of the White House would veto it, on the ground that folks like Prowel are not entitled to "special rights."
September 22, 2007 in Legal Issues

Friday, September 21, 2007

Federal Appeals Court: Transexuals Have NO Civil Rights.

Federal Appeals Court: Transsexuals Have No Civil Rights
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: September 21, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET
(Denver, Colorado) A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that found transsexuals are not covered by federal discrimination laws.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Krystal Etsitty had no legal recourse in fighting her firing by the Utah Transit Authority in 2005.
The court, which sits in Denver, found that the trial judge was correct in finding that the transit authority feared it could be sued by people born biologically female if it were discovered Etsitty still had male genitals.
At the time of her firing Etsitty was transitioning from male to female.
She was undergoing hormone therapy, wearing women's clothing and presenting herself as female.
Following her dismissal she sued under federal sexual discrimination laws.
In court judge David Sam referred to Etsitty as "she" but dismissed the suit saying that because Etsitty had been born male the federal law did not apply.
Sam's written ruling said that a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning discrimination against people who do not meet the stereotype of their gender - an effeminate man or a butch woman - does not apply to the transgendered.
"There is a huge difference between a woman who does not behave as femininely as her employer thinks she should, and a man who is attempting to change his sex and appearance to be a woman," Sam wrote.
"Such drastic action cannot be fairly characterized as a mere failure to conform to stereotypes."
Etsitty appealed to the 10th Circuit which Thursday upheld Sam's ruling.
Eight groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed briefs in support of Etsitty's case.
©365Gay.com 2007

MD Gov. Betrays Gays

O'Malley betrays gays
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is the new Mitt Romney.
Just when you thought a politician could sink no lower in the duplicitous art of flip-flopping comes the hidden tale of how O'Malley assured gay rights activists and plaintiffs in the Maryland marriage case that he supported same-sex marriage, only to reverse course and ultimately invoke his Catholic religious beliefs to justify his support of discrimination.
It’s an all-too-familiar story of a Democratic candidate promising to stand up for an all-too-loyal gay constituency, then kicking us when we’re down.
That’s an apt description of O’Malley’s actions this week. As gay Marylanders were reeling from the high court decision upholding the state’s marriage ban – shedding tears and canceling wedding plans – the governor released a statement that didn’t offer sympathy or condolences. Instead, he said he respected the court’s decision – an opinion unparalleled in its gratuitously offensive language – and that lawmakers shouldn’t tell religions how to define the sacraments.
With that statement, O’Malley kicked us all at a time when we were down and we should not forget it. No more gay money. No more gay votes. No more door-to-door gay support or green bumper stickers or yard signs. After distinguishing himself as a brash young politician of a new generation, he has revealed himself to be a typical climber, so blinded by national ambition that he would break any promise to pad his resume and preserve his power.
For someone whose own marriage has been the subject of endless rumors of infidelity (how many couples have had to call a press conference to announce they don’t cheat?), O’Malley sure has a lot of nerve denigrating gay families.
But back to that flip-flop. After repeatedly telling Maryland’s gay rights leaders that he backed gay marriage in 2004 and as late as August 2005, O’Malley abruptly rediscovered his Catholic roots, no doubt after his gubernatorial campaign manager told him to. In a 2004 meeting and in multiple e-mails to plaintiff Lisa Polyak, O’Malley expressed his support for same-sex marriage. He even reiterated that support in a televised interview, which lives on at www.wjz.com. (Search for "Maryland lawmaker marriage.")
Then came the courageous ruling of Judge Brooke Murdock in January 2006 that the state’s marriage law discriminated against gay couples. That’s when O’Malley, now under the control of handlers, campaign managers and other poll-driven advisers, had his epiphany and announced that he was raised to believe marriage is between a man and woman.
Gay activists were angry but in a private meeting, O’Malley disavowed his earlier statements of support anyway. Rather than assail his naked hypocrisy, the gay community stood by O’Malley because they so desperately wanted Bob Ehrlich out of office. Be careful what you wish for.
This is what happens when we blindly hand our support to candidates and demand nothing in return. We get screwed. Well, gay Marylanders got just what we deserved this week when O’Malley announced his “respect” for the court decision. When will gays learn that subjugating ourselves to any one party is a doomed strategy?
Just look at what has followed the court’s decision. First came O’Malley’s offensive statement, which ignores the fact that the debate is over state-sanctioned civil rights, not religion. Then he hinted to the Baltimore Sun that there is no real support or political will to pass a civil unions bill in the legislature. Of course, a real leader uses his influence and political capital to create that will, but we now know that O’Malley is a follower, not a leader or energetic visionary.
Then another Democrat in Annapolis emerged to announce his opposition to not only same-sex marriage, but civil unions too. Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller told the Washington Post that he’s against both options. With Democrats in control of the General Assembly and the governor’s office, you would expect some positive news out of Maryland, but you would be wrong.
Polyak put it succinctly when she told the Blade this week: “He’s a liar.” O’Malley’s record on gay issues is thin at best. Last year, he wouldn’t even come out publicly against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, even though it was a doomed measure. His opponent in the primary, Doug Duncan, properly denounced the amendment, but O’Malley ducked the issue.
His support for Maryland gays seems limited to showing up at Pride, flashing a smile and maybe his biceps, then disappearing again. Next year, Mr. O’Malley, please don’t come to Pride. You’re not welcome. And don’t send your wife to speak at our fundraisers. Instead of genuflecting before hypocrites and liars, gays and lesbians should honor true supporters of our equality. And new supporters emerged just this week, in sharp contrast to the phony O’Malley.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders delivered a speech in which he flip-flopped on gay marriage — in the other direction. He bravely told constituents that he would direct the city attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage, even though he previously promised to veto that resolution.
“I have decided to lead with my heart — to do what I think is right — and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice,” Sanders said. “The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution. … The concept of a ‘separate but equal’ institution is not something that I can support.”
Kudos to Sanders for offering us all a beacon of hope after a demoralizing week in Maryland. Closer to home, Maryland Delegate Todd Schuler, a Democrat from Baltimore County, showed up at a rally Tuesday night to pledge his support for a same-sex marriage bill in the next session. He’s straight and married, but drove into Baltimore to stand in solidarity with a tearful, mostly gay, audience.
And Marylanders owe a huge debt of gratitude to the plaintiffs who sacrificed their privacy in the name of equality under the law. It’s one thing to be out, it’s quite another to be out on TV and in the media, especially when raising kids. The families, activists and attorneys that challenged the state’s discriminatory law have inspired the next generation of gay rights leaders who will one day overcome the obstacles erected this week.
As we have seen in Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Canada, Spain, South Africa and elsewhere, the times are changing. The setback in Maryland is a painful reminder that civil rights movements are not won in 30 years. The cruel language of the court’s opinion, which cites procreation as a defense for discrimination and questions whether homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, should inspire supporters of gay rights to redouble their efforts. Equality under the law won’t come easily or quickly, but it will come.
As activist Lea Gilmore put it so powerfully at Tuesday night’s rally, “We shall not be moved.”

Thursday, September 20, 2007

San Diego Mayor Reverses Stand on Gay Marriage

San Diego Mayor Reverses Stand, Now Supports Gay Marriage
by The Associated Press
Posted: September 20, 2007 - 12:01 am ET
(San Diego, California) The mayor of the nation's eighth-largest city abruptly reversed his public opposition to same-sex marriage late Wednesday after revealing that his adult daughter is a lesbian.
Mayor Jerry Sanders signed a City Council resolution supporting a legal fight to overturn California's prohibition on same-sex marriage. He had previously said he would veto the resolution. (story)
Sanders, a former police chief and a Republican, told reporters that he could no longer support the position he took during his mayoral campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for same-sex couples.
"Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative," he said at a news conference. "Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed. The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something that I can support."
He fought back tears as he said that he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws. His daughter was not at the news conference.
"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships - their very lives - were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife, Rana," Sanders said.
The mayor, who is up for re-election next year, acknowledged that many voters who supported his earlier stance may disagree, but he said he had to do what he believed was right.
Lisa Sanders was unavailable for comment, said the mayor's spokesman, Fred Sainz. She told her parents four years ago that she is a lesbian and is in a committed relationship, but her orientation wasn't public until her father's speech, Sainz said.
The City Council on Tuesday voted 5-3 to join other California cities in supporting a challenge to a ban on same-sex marriage that is pending before the state Supreme Court. The court is expected to rule next year on whether to uphold a lower court decision that found the ban constitutional.
The lawsuits grew out of the high court's decision to invalidate marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples who flocked to San Francisco in 2004, after Mayor Gavin Newsom instructed city officials to allow the couples to wed.
Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose and Santa Cruz are among cities that have already filed briefs in favor of same-sex marriage.
On Monday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would veto a bill, approved by legislators last week, redefining marriage as a civil contract between two people. (story)
He said he would not reconsider his position and vowed to keep vetoing similar measures unless voters overturned a measure against gay marriage that 61 percent of them endorsed in 2000.
Schwarzenegger has until Oct. 14 to act on the measure

College President Anounces His Gay Wedding

College President Anounces His Gay Wedding :: EDGE Boston

College President Anounces His Gay Weddingby Kilian MelloyEDGE Boston ContributorWednesday Sep 19, 2007A college president and his male partner were married over Labor Weekend, but only announced their nuptials this week.Ralph Hexter, President of Hampshire College, married his partner of 27 years, Manfred Kollmeier, but waited until the college’s welcome back event to make news of their marriage public, according to a story at Advocate.com today.A celebration for the newlyweds is planned for Wednesday, the story said.The marriage of Hexter and Kollmeier marks the first marriage between a college president and a same-sex spouse since Massachusetts’ marriage equality law was passed in 2004.Hexter explained the delay in announcing his wedding in a press release, saying, "We wanted to announce our marriage to our community first."Continued Hexter, "This is our way of celebrating Hampshire College, which so warmly welcomed us as a couple when I was named president in 2005, and of celebrating the state of Massachusetts and all those who helped it become a pioneer in recognizing and upholding the right of gay couples to be legally married." Kollmeier also expressed himself int eh release, saying, "Ralph and I made a lifelong commitment to one another many years ago, so marrying is not about marking a new stage in our relationship."Continued Kollmeier, "We feel it is important to exercise the precious right we have here to marry. Massachusetts should be the first, not the only state where this is possible. Discrimination should end, and all couples who wish to be civilly married, wherever they live, should have the right to do so."Hexter, an alumnus of both Harvard and Yale, as well as of Oxford, became Hampshire’s fifth president in 2005, according to the Advocate article.Kollmeier, from Munich, Germany, is retired, the Advocate story said. He is on the board of directors of the Commonwealth Opera Company of Western Massachusetts.Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.

Ocean Grove obliged to allow civil unions | Home News Tribune Online

OcOcean Grove obliged to allow civil unions
Home News Tribune Online 09/20/07
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has filed a federal lawsuit to prohibit the use of its boardwalk pavilion for the performance of civil unions between lesbian and gay couples. The maneuver is a response to a state Department of Environmental Protection decision that stripped the group of its tax-exempt status because it refuses to make the pavilion available to all public organizations or individuals on an equal basis.
OAS_AD('Right3');
Ordinarily, the Methodist-owned-and-operated seaside community would be within its constitutional and statutory authority to refuse the performance of same-sex civil unions on its property. Religious groups enjoy the legal power to decide how their properties are used, even to the extent that they may discriminate against groups or activities that run counter to religious doctrine.
The problem for the association is that it surrendered those protections the very moment it accepted any federal funds for the support of its public spaces. First came the sum of $250,000 for repair of its boardwalk and the roof of its Great Auditorium following a 1992 storm, and later some additional public monies for replenishment of its beaches. The association also received a $500,000 tax break as part of a DEP Green Acres program that encourages private spaces to be used for public purposes.
"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson wrote to the association on Monday. Exactly.
Since the DEP is the agency with which the association had an agreement — a pact it has now broken — agency heads are well within their jurisdiction to repeal the tax break.
It no doubt is true that same-sex civil unions are anathema to church leaders, and to see them performed on church property could only stir bad blood. But as the old saying goes, the association can't have its cake and eat it, too. Taxpayer support is tied to certain strings; it's too late for Ocean Grove to cut them back.
All of this said, the motives of the couples who've sued to hold civil unions don't seem entirely pure; there are plenty of other locations along the beachfront where their ceremonies can be conducted. In fact, they take place all the time. Rather, the legal challenge looks more like a way to poke a stick in the eyes of church leaders. For a group that seeks tolerance, it would be wise and a lot more compassionate to display a bit of their own.

Md. Senate President Won't Back Gay Unions - washingtonpost.com

Md. Senate President Won't Back Gay Unions - washingtonpost.com

Md. Senate President Won't Back Gay UnionsAdvocates Vow to Fight For Marriage Equality
By Lisa ReinWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, September 20, 2007; B06
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. said yesterday that he would not support legislation to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions in Maryland, signaling that supporters of gay marriage will face resistance as they take their campaign from the courts to the General Assembly.
Advocates vowed to continue their quest for full marriage rights in the legislature after the state's highest court upheld Maryland's 34-year-old law banning same-sex marriage Tuesday. But Miller said he sees no reason to change the law now.
"People can introduce any bill they'd like," Miller (D-Calvert) said. "But at this juncture, I don't believe the votes are there to change the law. . . . The burden will be on the people who feel it's needed to explain the need for a change."
Maryland Democrats control the General Assembly and governor's office, but their views on same-sex unions are varied and nuanced. Many would prefer to consider granting legal rights and benefits to gay couples rather than debate whether the state should sanction their unions. Some say privately they would rather avoid putting the issue to a vote.
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he supports civil unions, but he has kept a low profile on the matter.
Gay advocates' prospects are better in the House of Delegates, which votes more liberally than the Senate and has three openly gay members. The large Montgomery County delegation, for example, "would be supportive of gay marriage," House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery) said.
However, the legislature's black caucus, typically one of the most reliable voting blocs on progressive issues, is deeply divided on the issue, torn between religious convictions on the one hand and its traditional commitment to civil rights on the other.
"It's not an easy vote," said Del. Dereck E. Davis (D-Prince George's), a black caucus member who is chairman of the Economic Matters Committee. "We've never cast a vote on marriage." Davis said he would not support same-sex marriage or civil unions.
The Court of Appeals' 4 to 3 ruling Tuesday that the same-sex marriage ban does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them any fundamental rights took many on both sides of the issue by surprise. Supporters and opponents said they expected the court to strike down the law or find it unconstitutional and tell the legislature to find a remedy.
In the absence of direction from the court for change, several lawmakers said a new law granting full marriage rights would have little momentum.
"This is clearly an uphill battle," said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, a partner in the lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed against the state on behalf of 19 gay men and women in 2004.
Prospects may be even worse for supporters of a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. A constitutional proposal of the kind pushed by Republicans and killed in committees for the past three years is unlikely to go anywhere, lawmakers said.
A big unknown is the governor. Advocates for gay rights say they will look to him for leadership. But O'Malley aides say he is unlikely to champion civil unions publicly, either now, while his administration is consumed with the state's budget shortfall, or in the future.
Although the gay advocates' fight has been for full marriage rights, some say they might be willing to compromise.
"Marriage equality will always be my goal," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery), who is openly gay. "But do I recognize that process is often about compromise? Yes."
A possible compromise could be legislation that establishes a domestic partner registry for same-sex couples, giving them rights to property ownership, inheritance, health care, insurance coverage, hospital visitation, child custody and pension benefits.
Furmansky said such a bill would be far from ideal: "When we get into setting up separate legal constructs . . . the question becomes which rights do we deny same-sex couples, and why?"
But some lawmakers said a bill of this kind might have a better chance of passing. Miller, for example, voted for a registry in 2005, a measure later vetoed by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).
"If people can point out problems that can be addressed short of civil unions, perhaps the General Assembly can move forward," Miller said.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Washington Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to Seattle Executive Order

Leonard Link: Washington Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to Seattle Executive Order

Washington Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to Seattle Executive Order
In March 2004, the mayor of Seattle, Washington, Gregory Nickels, issued an executive order titled "City Recognition of Valid Marriage Licenses," which ordered that "all City Departments recognize the same sex marriages of City employees in the same manner as they currently recognize opposite sex marriages of City employees for purposes of granting employee benefits and other benefits ordinarily received in the course of employment."
Nickels’ order was a pragmatic reaction to the fact that beginning in the summer of 2003 it was a relatively simple matter for same-sex couples in Seattle to take a quick trip north to Vancouver and get married, as the British Columbia Court of Appeals had ordered the province to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Once validly married same-sex couples began asking to have their marriages recognized for city benefits purposes, the city had to have a policy.
But Nickels’ policy did not sit well with some city residents opposed to same sex marriage, living in a state that had passed a Defense of Marriage Act that provided that marriage in the state of Washington could only occur between and man and a woman. So a lawsuit was filed challenging the policy. King County Superior Court Judge Bruce W. Hilyer granted the city’s motion to dismiss the case, and the plaintiffs appealed.
On September 17, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Hilyer’s decision, in an opinion written by Judge Ronald E. Cox.
The plaintiffs made two different legal arguments. First, they argued that the city could not recognize foreign same-sex marriages, because the issue of marriage itself is preempted as a matter of state law. Rejecting this argument, the court observed that under the home rule provisions of the Washington Constitution, major cities like Seattle are authorized to adopt city charters for their governance providing broad legislative and executive powers to the city government, and these powers included the establishment and regulation of benefits for city employees.
The court pointed out that the Washington State Supreme Court has previously addressed this question in a slightly different set of circumstances when it rejected a challenge to the city of Vancouver’s decision to establish a domestic partnership benefit plan for its employees. In that case, the state’s highest court decisively rejected the argument that the city was preempted from recognizing same-sex partnerships, holding that it was within the authority of the city to set the terms of employment for its workers in order to attract qualified applicants.
The plaintiffs’ potentially stronger argument was to attack the Seattle executive order based on the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which was upheld against constitutional challenge last year when the Washington Supreme Court rejected a same-sex marriage lawsuit by a vote of 5-4. In this case, the plaintiff argued that Mayor Nickels’ order "gives legal effect to same-sex marriage, which is expressly prohibited by the legislature."
Judge Cox pointed out that in the Vancouver benefits case, the state Supreme Court had specifically rejected the argument that providing partner benefits to city employees violated the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. "The court noted that extending benefits to domestic partners does not transform the relationship into a legal marriage," wrote Cox. "Here, the executive order extending benefits to city employees in same-sex marriages in the same manner as other city employees determines who is eligible for employee benefits. Nowhere does the order purport to give legal effect to same-sex marriages." The court saw no conflict between the mayor’s order and any provision of state law.
The plaintiffs had tried to rely on a recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which held that providing domestic partner benefits to public employees in that state violated the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment. But Cox noted that the Michigan amendment went much further than Washington’s DOMA, since it provided that different-sex marriage "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose," whereas the Washington enactment merely defined marriage without expressly prohibiting the state from extending other forms of recognition to same-sex partners.
"We recognize that the executive order contains language to which [the plaintiff] objects and on which much of the arguments are based," Cox commented, pointing to the "Whereas" clauses that come at the beginning of the executive order and proclaim support for marriage equality regardless of sexual orientation, but he accepted the city’s argument characterizing this language as "aspirational views that do not affect the operative portions of the order that define who is entitled to employee benefits." Despite all the pro-gay rhetoric, as a practical matter all that the order does is to extend domestic partnership benefits to those city employees whose proof of partnership consists of a marriage contracted in another jurisdiction. As Seattle already had a domestic partnership benefits program in place, this just meant there was one more way to document one’s partnership for benefits purposes.
Theoretically, the plaintiffs could attempt to appeal this ruling to the state supreme court, but the appeals court shows convincingly that the high court’s prior decision on domestic partnership benefits in the city of Vancouver effectively rejects the main arguments that the plaintiffs made in this case.

Maryland Court Decision Summary

« Maryland Marriage Decision
Divided Maryland High Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Claim
by Arthur Leonard Leonard Link
In a ruling sharply reminiscent of last year’s decision by the Washington State Supreme Court, which was similarly sharply divided, the Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, ruled by a vote of 5-2 on September 18 that the state’s denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples does not violate the Maryland constitution. By an even narrower vote, 4-3, the court also implicitly ruled that same-sex couples are not constitutionally entitled to the rights and benefits associated with marriage through some alternative arrangement, such as a civil union.
Writing for a majority of the court, Judge Glenn T. Harrell, Jr., rejected the reasoning that had been adopted in January 2006 by Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, who had found that the state’s policy violated the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Article 46 of the Maryland Constitution. The ERA, adopted in 1972, provides that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex." The Maryland courts have ruled that state laws that discriminate based on sex are subject to strict scrutiny on judicial review, meaning they will only be upheld if they are necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The plaintiffs, nine same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses and one gay single man with future marital hopes who were represented by the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, argued their case based on the ERA as well as other provisions of the Maryland Constitution guaranteeing equal protection and due process of law, but Circuit Judge Murdock had focused on the ERA, finding that because the right to marry turned on the sex of the parties, the law created a classification based on sex subject to strict scrutiny, and that the state had failed to show that the discrimination was necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
In rejecting this holding, Judge Harrell’s decision embraced an interpretation of the ERA that the dissenters claimed was contradictory to its past interpretation by Maryland courts. Harrell reasoned that because the statute equally barred both men and women from marrying partners of the same sex, it was not discriminatory on the basis of sex, pointing to contemporary news reports about the debates at the time of its passage indicating that its proponents were motivated by a desire to end discriminatory treatment of women as compared to men. "Based on our precedents interpreting Article 46, we conclude that the Legislature’s and electorate’s ultimate goal in putting in place the Maryland ERA was to put men and women on equal ground, and to subject to closer scrutiny any governmental action which singled out for disparate treatment men or women as discrete classes."
Explaining his conclusion that the marriage statute did not violate this non-discrimination requirement, Harrell wrote, "The limitations on marriage effected by Family Law Section 2-201 do not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class. Nor does the statute, facially or in its application, place men and women on an uneven playing field. Rather, the statute prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct. . . To accept Appellees’ contention that Family Law section 2-201 discriminates on the basis of sex would be to extend the reach of the ERA beyond the scope intended by the Maryland General Assembly and the State’s voters who enacted and ratified, respectively, the amendment."
This brought a sharp rejoinder from Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, whose dissent was joined by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell. Battaglia devoted almost half of her eighty-page dissenting opinion to a thorough review of the past Maryland cases interpreting the ERA, concluding that any statute that classifies people based on their sex is subject to strict scrutiny review. Battaglia and the Chief Judge agreed with Circuit Judge Murdock that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard here, that the state could not prove a compelling interest, and thus that same-sex couples are entitled to equal marriage rights.
For Judge Harrell, however, this was more properly viewed as a sexual orientation discrimination case and, following the approach that most lower courts have embraced, he concluded that such discrimination invokes only the rationality test, under which legislation is presumed to be constitutional and the burden is on challengers to demonstrate its irrationality. Referring to the recent successes of the gay rights movement in Maryland in getting legislation passed, most notably the law against discrimination, he rejected the content that sexual orientation should be considered a "suspect classification" under which such discrimination would invoke strict scrutiny judicial review. He also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs’ claim involved a "fundamental right," arguing that the issue should be evaluated based on the particular claim for same-sex marriage rather than the more general claim that same-sex couples have a right to marry. (If the difference between those two seems a matter of semantics, then welcome to the fantastical world of constitutional argument.)
Ultimately, Harrell’s opinion trod the well-worn path now familiar from adverse marriage decisions in Washington, Indiana, and New York, focusing on the unquestioned assertion that only different-sex couples can conceive children through sexual intercourse with each other. "The question remains whether there exists a sufficient link between an interest in fostering a stable environment for procreation and the means at hand used to further that goal, i.e., an implicit restriction on those who wish to avail themselves of State-sanctioned marriage," he wrote. "We conclude that there does exist a sufficient link," noting that in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1967 striking down a criminal prohibition on mixed-race marriage, the Court had referred to marriage as "fundamental to our very existence and survival." "This ‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only," he continued, "because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding)."
Harrell bolstered his opinion by citations to the prior decisions denying same-sex marriage claims, most of which have emphasized procreation as a central feature of marriage. While Harrell acknowledged statistics showing that the traditional nuclear family was a declining proportion of all families, and that many children are now being raised by same-sex adult partners, as well as the fact that many different-sex couples marry without having children, he nonetheless concluded that "so long as the Legislature has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit, we may not ‘substitute [our] social and economic beliefs for the judgement of legislative bodies.’"
Harrell ended his 109 page decision by indicating that the opinion "should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex."
Judge Battaglia’s dissenting opinion echoed some of the Washington State dissenters, and the partial dissenters on the New Jersey Supreme Court who had argued that state constitutional equality requirements demanded opening up marriage to same-sex partners. "The correspondence between opposite-sex marriage and biological necessity has never been more tenuous that it is today," she wrote. "What has always been an imperfect fit between marriage and procreation is now called into question." She pointed out that the state’s procreation arguments had not been subjected to strict scrutiny by any appellate court majority, since the past decisions had all treated the question as one of rationality. While these arguments might satisfy the deferential rational basis test as applied by the Maryland court majority, she argued that they could not survive strict scrutiny, which she argued was the appropriate test under the state ERA.
In his brief separate dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Bell quoted extensively from the 2006 dissenting opinion by New York’s Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, in Hernandez v. Robles, pointing out the actual irrationality of attempting to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by citing the state’s interest in bolstering the reproductive activities of different-sex couples. He argued that "it is disingenuous indeed to surmise that the ‘possibility of procreation’ creates a reasonable relationship in this context. As simply put by Chief Judge Kaye, ‘marriage is about much more than producing children,’ and yet the majority leaves open gaping questions such as ‘how offering only heterosexuals the right to visit a sick loved one in the hospital . . . conceivably furthers the State’s interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to have children."
"The sheer breadth of the benefits appurtenant to marriage that are, pursuant to Family Law section 2-201, made unavailable to same-sex couples renders justification ‘impossible to credit,’" he concluded, again quoting Judge Kaye.
Judge Irma S. Raker tried to carve out a middle ground. She argued in her separate opinion that the New Jersey Supreme Court had adopted the appropriate analysis and had come up with the appropriate remedy. Echoing the majority opinion in last year’s Lewis v. Harris ruling from that state, she argued that the issue of the rights and benefits of marriage should be analyzed separately from the issue of the right to marry as such, and concluded that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to the former but not the latter, as she agreed with the Maryland majority on the right-to-marry question.
To get to this point, she conceived of the discrimination at issue as being between similarly situated "committed same-sex couples" and "married opposite-sex couples" – at least, similarly situated with respect to the various rights and benefits that are provided by the state through marriage. She could find no rational justification for the state to distinguish between these two classes of couples with respect to such rights and benefits, especially in light of the family law developments in Maryland under which same-sex couples already enjoy a fair number of parental rights as a result of particular court decisions.
"Despite the fact that Maryland provides some rights and benefits in the area of procreation to same-sex couples," she wrote, "the State asserts it has a rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from the _full_ benefits of marriage. This is not a rational assertion. There is no doubt that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation and child rearing, but it cannot rationally further this interest by only granting the full rights of marriage to opposite-sex couples when it _already_ provides some legal protections regarding procreation and child rearing to same-sex couples. Maryland’s equal protection jurisprudence requires that a legislative distinction _reasonably_ relate to the achievement of a legitimate State interest. Here, where Maryland has granted _some_ rights regarding procreation and child-rearing to same-sex couples, it cannot rationally claim that its interest in providing a stable environment for procreation and child rearing is then actually furthered by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the equal rights and benefits of marriage."
Judge Raker found it "striking. . . that the State’s proffered interest - providing a stable environment for procreation and child rearing – is actually compromised by denying same-sex families the benefits and rights that flow from marriage. That is, there is not a sufficient link between the State’s proffered legitimate interest and the means utilized by the State to further that interest."

Romneys New Radio Ad on Gay Marriage - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Romneys New Radio Ad on Gay Marriage - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

September 18, 2007, 3:24 pm
Romney’s New Radio Ad on Gay Marriage
By Michael Luo
Mitt Romney is counting on his outspokenness on culture war issues to win him crucial support among Christian conservatives who are wary of his Mormon faith.
He is up with a new radio ad in Iowa, trumpeting his role in fighting gay unions in Massachusetts and his support for a federal marriage amendment banning them. The state is now ground zero for the battle over same-sex marriage after a judge overturned the state’s ban on the practice.
Mr. Romney’s campaign strategists are always on the lookout for key differentiators with other candidates, and they clearly believe this one is a winning one for him.
Christian conservative leaders appreciate that Mr. Romney has demonstrated a willingness to be a culture warrior, sounding off more on the issues than even former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, who does not have to work to prove his evangelical credentials.
Mr. Romney’s main rival for the Christian conservative vote among the leading Republican contenders is Fred D. Thompson, who opposes a federal marriage amendment and believes instead that states should settle this issue themselves. It is a stance that has caused alarm among some Christian conservative leaders.
But Mr. Romney has his own complicated history on gay rights to work through as well. He has been consistent in his opposition to gay marriage over the years, but when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and then for governor in 2002 his tone on gay rights was decidedly different than it is on the presidential campaign trail today. Back then, he portrayed himself as someone who would fight for gay equality, including partnership rights for same-sex couples. In 1994, when he ran against Senator Edward Kennedy, Mr. Romney said he supported federal legislation to bar discrimination against gays. In 2002, he also promised members of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization, according to several people who were at a meeting with him, that he would not champion a fight for or against gay marriage.
Mr. Romney would go on, of course, to become one of the most visible crusaders in the country against same-sex marriage, after a court decision paved the way for it in Massachusetts while he was governor. Mr. Romney is careful on the stump today to say he opposes discrimination against gays, but he sidesteps questions about what that might mean more specifically.
Here is the script for the 60-second spot:
ANNOUNCER: “In 2004, a judge in Massachusetts tipped the balance – paving the way to same-sex marriage for the first time in history.
“But the Governor of Massachusetts stood up, defending conservative values in our most liberal state.
“Governor Mitt Romney – he stood up for traditional marriage and fought the activist ruling every step.”
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “The courtroom should be a place where laws are interpreted, not made.”
ANNOUNCER: “Now, Mitt Romney is standing up for traditional marriage in Iowa, opposing the Polk County decision to permit same-sex marriage.”
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “The court ruling in Iowa is just another example of an activist judge trying to find things in the Constitution that aren’t there. As Republicans, we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage: one man, one woman.”
ANNOUNCER: “That’s why Mitt Romney is supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.”
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “Not all Republican candidates for president agree, but defending marriage is the right thing to do.”
ANNOUNCER: “Mitt Romney.”
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.”
ANNOUNCER: “Paid for by Romney For President. MittRomney.com.”

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Maryland High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Maryland High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: September 18, 2007 - 11:00 am ET
(Annapolis, Maryland) Maryland's Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision on Tuesday and upheld the state law barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
Attorney's for nine same-sex couples had argued that the ban violates the Maryland constitution's Equal Rights Amendment, which protects against sex discrimination.
In a 4 - 3 split decision the Court of Appeals rejected the argument.
One of the dissenting judges said the legislature should either be required to adopt civil unions or marriage. The other two said that the case should be sent back to the lower court for a trial to see if government has a good enough reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage.
The majority opinion said that while the court agrees that marriage is a fundamental right, it says there is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex.
The court also said that although there has been a history of unfair discrimination against gay people, as a group gay people are not politically powerless.
"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.
"The court refused to recognize that lesbian and gay couples form committed relationships and loving families just like heterosexual couples," said Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project who argued the case before the court.
The suit originally was filed two years ago (story) by the ACLU on behalf of the nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner passed away and who would like to be able to marry one day.
In January Baltimore Judge M. Brooke Murdock said that the 1973 law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman "cannot withstand constitutional challenge."
The ruling was stayed to allow the state to appeal.
In oral arguments last December before the Court of Appeals the state argued that the matter of same-sex marriage should be decided by the legislature not the courts.
"The General Assembly is the proper forum to weigh these issues," said Robert Zarnoch, counsel to the General Assembly.
Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project disagreed, telling the court that the issue was the state constitution and basic fairness.
"Lesbians and gay couples, who form loving and committed relationships, and who raise children, need and deserve the critical protections that come with marriage," he said.
"The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the most fundamental guarantees of equality and liberty for all."
Equality Maryland said it was surprised by the high court ruling, given judgments in Massachusetts and New Jersey where courts have ruled same-sex couples must be accorded the same rights as opposite-sex couples.
"We will be pushing for full, legal equality in the Maryland General Assembly," Equality Maryland executive director Dan Furmansky told the Washington Post after the ruling was released.
"This is a social justice struggle. Eventually, Maryland will have civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. It's inevitable."
The issue of same-sex marriage is also before the Supreme Court in California. Oral arguments are expected to be heard late this year or early in 2008.
©365Gay.com 2007

Schwarzenegger To Veto Marriage Bill

Schwarzenegger To Veto Gay Marriage Billby 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: September 18, 2007 - 9:00 am ET
(Sacramento, California) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced he again will veto legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry in California. And he warned lawmakers that they can keep on passing the bill and he will continue to veto it.
The only thing that would change his mind, he said Monday, is if voters overturned Proposition 22 which was passed by the electorate in 2000 to stop gay marriage, but which courts have ruled only applies to marriages performed out of state.
"It would be wrong for the people to vote for something and for me to then overturn it," Schwarzenegger told reporters at a news conference.
"We're extremely disappointed he is taking a position on the bill without meeting with a single lesbian-gay family, as we have asked him to do the last two years," said Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California.
"How would he feel if this was a bill affecting who he could marry?"
The governor's veto threat is his first comment on the current bill since February when he suggested he would reject it if the measure passed the legislature.
The bill passed the Senate just over a week ago. Schwarzenegger has until October 14th to sign or veto the bill.
His announced veto came as supporters of same-sex marriage prepared to hold rallies Tuesday across the state.
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, would amend the Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons instead of a civil contract between a man and a woman.
It is almost identical to legislation passed in 2005 and vetoed by Schwarzenegger.
The measure also reaffirms that no religious institution would ever be required to solemnize marriages contrary to its fundamental beliefs.
California law already permits same-sex couples to register with the state as domestic partners, affording them hundreds of state protections.
However, same-sex couples in California and their families still are not eligible for more than a thousand federal protections offered to married couples, including family and medical leave, social security benefits, long-term care insurance and the ability to sponsor a partner for immigration benefits.
Meanwhile, the California Supreme court is expected to hear oral arguments late this year or early in 2008 challenging the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage. (story)
©365Gay.com 2007

NJ withdraws tax break for Ocean Grove pavilion - Topix

State withdraws tax break for Ocean Grove pavilion - Topix

State withdraws tax break for Ocean Grove pavilion
Posted by Judy Peet September 17, 2007 4:50PM
Categories: Monmouth County, News
State Environmental Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson today withdrew a state-funded tax break for a Methodist group that refuses to allow gay couples to celebrate their civil unions at the popular beachfront pavilion in Ocean Grove.
Jackson denied the Green Acres program tax exempt status the state had granted to the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association because, she said in a letter sent to the association, "...it is clear that the Pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis."
A lesbian couple filed a state civil rights complaint against the Camp Meeting Association earlier this year after their request to hold a civil union at the pavilion was denied. The association, in turn, filed federal civil rights suit, claiming its rights as a church would be violated if it were forced to allow civil unions, which conflict with Methodist doctrine.
Garden State Equality, a gay activist organization supporting the lesbian couple, today claimed the decision as a victory that will cost the Camp Meeting Association "hundreds of thousands of dollars." A response from association was not immediately available this afternoon.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Same-Sex marriage often for the kids

Same-Sex marriage often for the kids


Same-Sex marriage often for the kids
Information shows those with children more likely to tie knot than those without

Chad Skelton
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, September 13, 2007
New census data suggests one possible explanation for why same-sex couples in B.C. are deciding to get married: They're doing it for the kids.
On Wednesday, Statistics Canada released figures from the 2006 census that, for the first time, include information on married couples of the same sex.
And the data shows same-sex couples with children are far more likely to get married than those without kids.
According to the census, nearly one in four lesbian married couples in B.C. (24 per cent) have a child living with them, compared with just 13 per cent of lesbian couples living common-law.
Gay men are far less likely to have children than lesbians.
But they, too, have a big marriage gap, with 6.8 per cent of gay married men living with kids, compared with just 0.5 per cent of unmarried gay couples.
University of B.C. law professor Fiona Kelly, who recently interviewed 49 lesbian mothers as part of a research project, said married lesbians often cite their children as a big reason they tied the knot.
"They felt it sent an important message to their children that they were committed to each other," said Kelly.
Marriage is seen by some as clarifying their parental rights, especially in cases where one woman is the biological mother and the other is not.
"In some of the families, it was their sole reason for getting married: They thought it would give their children greater social validity and perhaps greater legal protection," said Kelly.
This view may be mistaken, she said, because marriage itself does not automatically confer parental rights on someone.
But some women still feel getting married helps legitimize their relationship in the view of society and the law.
"What it does do is send a very clear message that you intend to parent together," said Kelly.
Another factor, said Kelly, is that lesbian couples with older children are often pressured by the kids themselves to get hitched.
"Those [children] who were cognizant of the debate were sent a very strong message that marriage was a good thing and it's what gay and lesbian couples wanted," said Kelly. "So they actually started questioning their parents and saying: 'Are you going to get married?' "
Until recently, said Kelly, most children raised by lesbian couples were born as the result of a past heterosexual relationship.
Now, however, the vast majority are born into a lesbian family.
In part, said Kelly, that's due to lesbians coming out younger, making it less likely they will ever have a relationship with a man.
And lesbians are taking increasing advantage of sperm donors -- in many cases, gay men they know -- to have kids of their own.
In fact, said Kelly, there is some evidence that we are in the midst of a "lesbian baby boom." She said one fertility clinic in Vancouver told her fully one quarter of its clients are now lesbians.
Vancouver resident Elizabeth Barbeau and her partner Dawn had a commitment ceremony in 1998 and then got married in 2003, shortly after gay marriage was made legal in B.C.
Last year, the couple adopted a baby boy named Isaac.
"We always knew we wanted to have kids from the beginning of our relationship," said Barbeau. "[And] we wanted the whole family to be recognized as one unit."
Barbeau said they would have got married even if they didn't want kids. But she said marriage gives her a sense of stability, which she likes.
"For me and for my family, there is a lot of security in the social recognition and legal recognition that comes from being married," said Barbeau.
Overall, the 2006 census counted 7,035 same-sex couples in B.C., of which 19.5 per cent were legally married.
Among major cities, Montreal has the highest concentration of same-sex couples in the country, with one in every 97 couples gay or lesbian.
Metro Vancouver is second with one in every 105 couples gay or lesbian.
And Victoria is third, with one in every 108 couples.
In Kelowna, just one in every 236 couples is gay or lesbian and in Abbotsford it's one in 253.
cskelton@png.canwest.com

Friday, September 14, 2007

City & Region in NY: Same-sex partners get rights on pensions

City & Region: Same-sex partners get rights on pensions

Same-sex partners get rights on pensions
State benefits applyif they are married
By Tom Precious - NEWS ALBANY BUREAUUpdated: 09/13/07 9:51 AMALBANY — The married, samesex partners of state and local government workers across New York now will be eligible for benefits from the state and local government pension system.
State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said Wednesday that a state court judge’s ruling this week tossing out a lawsuit by a conservative group clears the way for him to expand the pension benefits to samesex marriages performed in any jurisdiction that has legalized the unions.
“This is a great day for New Yorkers who believe in fairness and equality,” DiNapoli said.
The $150 billion pension system, of which DiNapoli is the sole trustee, has more than 1 million members, including tens of thousands in state, village, city and county jobs throughout Western New York.
“What we want is not a special privilege. It’s just the same thing as all married people have,” said Roseanne Fulcher, an Erie County Community College instructor who in 2004 got married in Canada to her longtime partner.
In 2004, the pension fund said it would provide benefits such as accidental death and cost-of-living retirement adjustments to same-sex partners of government employees legally married in Canada.
However, the Alliance Defense Fund, a group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., sued in state court to halt the practice. This week, acting State Supreme Court Judge Thomas McNamara dismissed the lawsuit, saying the practice by the comptroller is “consistent” with New York law of recognizing marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
“Under this theory, the laws of other countries and other states now become the laws of New York, circumventing the legislative process and creating a situation where same-sex marriages are recognized in New York without the legislative process,” said Brian Raum, a spokesman for the conservative organization.
Raum also said the judge’s decision will be appealed.
“This particular case isn’t about voicing opposition to same-sex marriage in general. It’s about ensuring state officials don’t exceed their constitutional authority and circumvent the will of the people and the legislative process,” he said.
For gay rights groups, the judge’s decision and DiNapoli’s move Wednesday are a victory that provides additional benefits for same-sex marriage partners. The DiNapoli decision affects only pension benefits, and only for those enrolled in the New York State and Local Retirement System, which covers everyone from workers in city, town and village governments to state government workers and retirees.
Besides Canada, same-sex marriages have been legalized in Massachusetts, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa. Gay couples from New York cannot go to Massachusetts to get married, but a couple already married in Massachusetts and relocating to New York would be covered by the new pension policy.
Gay rights advocates view the DiNapoli decision as a step toward getting same-sex marriage legalized in New York. The Assembly approved a same-sex marriage bill earlier this year while the issue has not been taken up in the Senate.
“I hope this sends a really strong signal to the New York State Senate that fairness is important and that our relationships, same-sex couple relationships, are as valid as anyone else,” said Bruce Kogan, a gay Buffalo resident who retired recently from the state’s crime victims board.
The Arizona group that challenged the comptroller’s pension decision argued, in part, that the policy went against a 2006 decision by the state Court of Appeals, which said that the state’s current ban on same-sex marriages is not unconstitutional.
Gay rights groups and DiNapoli, however, argue that the ruling did not apply to how the pension fund sets benefits for same-sex couples married outside of New York.
McNamara said the state has long recognized marriages performed elsewhere, “even if it could not have been lawfully entered in this state.”
The only two exceptions specifically in state law are marriages involving polygamy or incest, the judge said.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/mailto:tprecious@buffnews.com

CT Both sides in same-sex marriage debate await Supreme Court ruling The Republican-American, Waterbury, Conn.

Both sides in same-sex marriage debate await Supreme Court ruling The Republican-American, Waterbury, Conn.

Both sides in same-sex marriage debate await Supreme Court ruling
HARTFORD -- The opposing camps in the gay marriage debate are waiting for the Connecticut Supreme Court to make a historic ruling on marriage rights.Four months have passed since the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether same-sex couples have the legal right to marry here.
The court's decision could redefine marriage in Connecticut. Until the ruling, opposing sides on the marriage question can only wait and speculate.Vincent P. McCarthy, an attorney for the Family Institute of Connecticut and an opponent of same-sex marriage, suspects that the seven justices who heard the case are sharply divided."I think it is going to be close," McCarthy said.Bennett Klein, a senior staff attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said, "I really think there is no purpose to predicting or speculating about the outcome of the case." Lawyers for GLAD argued on behalf of Beth Kerrigan and Jody Mock, and other gay and lesbian couples who brought the court appeal.
McCarthy said the length of the Supreme Court's deliberations strikes him as odd. He takes that as a possible sign of deep divisions and jockeying among justices."I think you are going to see a very divided opinion when it comes out," McCarthy said.He said the loss of Senior Justice William J. Sullivan was a blow for opponents of same-sex marriage. Sullivan removed himself from the panel assigned to the appeal days before it was to hear arguments in the case.McCarthy said opponents considered Sullivan, a devout Catholic and a conservative on the bench, a sure vote against same-sex marriage.

Schwarzenegger set to veto gay marriage again- from Pink News- all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Schwarzenegger set to veto gay marriage again- from Pink News- all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Action hero actor turned Republican Californian Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is expected to veto a bill allowing gay marriages for the second time in two years.The Californian Senate voted 22 to 15 to support the bill (AB43) that would allow gay marriage based on a "a civil contract between two persons," that would allow religious insitutions to refuse to officiate gay marriages."There has been disparate treatment ... and it's gone to the heart of our lives," said Democrat Senator Sheila Kuehl, a gay rights activist who added: "Our love is a good love, and the same as others."The bill's author, Democrat Assemblyman Mark Leno said: "Two consecutive legislatures have now boldly and proudly affirmed the full, first class, and equal citizenship of all of Californians in loving and committed relationship who want their bond recognized and honored by the state in which they live and to which they contribute."My Senate colleagues recognized what an ever increasing number of fair-minded Californians also see - that marriage strengthens our society and singling same sex couples out of this important institution hurts us all."The bill is more or less the same as the one that Mr Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005.His spokesman, Aaron McLean, said the governor will abide by the results of a state referendum on marriage where 61.4 per cent of voters said that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman."The people spoke their mind in 2000 and it's his job to uphold the will of the people."

FL marriage amendment plows ahead

Petition for marriage amendment plows ahead
By JIM SAUNDERS Tallahassee Bureau Chief
TALLAHASSEE -- As an Iowa court decision refuels a national debate about the issue, Floridians appear headed toward voting next year on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages.
Backers of the proposed amendment are getting close to having enough petition signatures to put the issue on the November 2008 ballot, potentially setting up a major political fight.
Florida already has a law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from marrying, but it's not part of the constitution.
Orlando lawyer John Stemberger, who is leading efforts to pass the amendment, said Florida needs to put the ban in the constitution because a judge could overturn the current law.
An Iowa judge last week struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, briefly allowing gay couples to wed. The decision was later stayed, pending an appeal.
"Iowa is Exhibit A for why the marriage amendment needs to be codified in the constitution," said Stemberger, president of the conservative Florida Family Policy Council. "Massachusetts (the only state that allows same-sex marriages) is exhibit B."
But many opponents argue such bans discriminate against same-sex couples, preventing them from having the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Also, Damien Filer, a spokesman for a coalition called Fairness for All Families, said the proposed Florida amendment could have far-reaching implications for gay and straight unmarried couples.
Filer said, for example, it could affect health care and other benefits that some government agencies provide to their employees' domestic partners. He said people aren't aware "just how broad the impacts of this could be."
Stemberger said, however, the wording of the amendment would not affect such benefits. He called those arguments a "scare tactic."
Same-sex marriage has been a major issue since 2003, when a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court cleared the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry.
In all, 27 states have constitutional provisions that prevent same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Arizona voters defeated such a proposal in 2006.
Supporters of the Florida amendment need to submit 611,000 verified petition signatures by Feb. 1 to get on the ballot. They had more than 594,000 as of Wednesday afternoon. Also, they need to meet varying signature requirements in at least half of the state's congressional districts.
But Stemberger said it's too early to declare that the issue will go before voters, as lawmakers this year made the ballot-initiative process harder.
As an example, lawmakers made it possible for voters to revoke their petition signatures, adding uncertainty for groups trying to get on the ballot.
If the amendment reaches the ballot, it will need approval from 60 percent of voters to pass. That's because of a 2006 change that increased the number of required votes to pass constitutional amendments, up from a simple majority.
Aubrey Jewett, a University of Central Florida political science professor who studies state politics, called the 60 percent requirement the "real wild card."
Jewett said he thinks the amendment will probably pass if it's clear the measure only blocks same-sex marriage. But he said voters might be less likely to support the amendment if it's viewed as potentially taking away benefits from unmarried partners.

Thompson; Let states decide on gay marriage

Thompson: Let states decide on gay marriage
GOP candidate voted for federal marriage law
THOMAS BEAUMONTREGISTER STAFF WRITER
September 7, 2007


Sioux City, Ia. — Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, campaigning today in Iowa’s socially conservative northwest, stopped short of supporting a constitutional amendment explicitly banning gay marriage.His stance puts him at odds with many in the GOP base in Iowa, where the caucuses launch the 2008 nominating season.Instead, Thompson said the alternative measure he supports would effectively outlaw same-sex marriage without imposing a federal mandate on states.“I do not think one-size-fits-all, national, federal solutions absolving the states of their responsibilities for good laws too is the way to go,” the former Tennessee senator told reporters on his campaign bus after a stop in Le Mars.Thompson was on his second day of campaigning in Iowa, having launched his campaign from Des Moines and headlined a rally in Council Bluffs Thursday. The familiar television actor, lawyer and former lobbyist spent the day traveling through the most strongly Republican part of Iowa today, and was scheduled to headline events in Cedar Rapids and Davenport Saturday.Thompson was asked during a campaign stop in Sioux City if he supported a federal ban on gay marriage, which most but not all of the candidates seeking the 2008 GOP nomination support.He responded by suggesting the U.S. Constitution be amended to bar court decisions in one state on gay marriage from being recognized in another. The provision is part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Thompson voted for in the Senate.Giving a Sioux City audience of about 250 a first glimpse of his positions on key issues, Thompson also said he would include in a constitutional amendment prohibitions on a judge’s authority to declaring gay marriage legal without legislative approval.“What we’re seeing here is a totally judicially created problem,” Thompson told an audience of roughly 250, mostly Republican activists from northwest Iowa, during a 30-minute event at the Sioux City Convention Center.“My approach would attack the problem where the problem is, the judiciary,” Thompson later told reporters.A 2004 Iowa Poll by The Des Moines Register found 64 percent of Iowa Republicans supported an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban marriage for gay couples, with 29 percent opposing such an amendment.The issue has bubbled to the surface in Iowa this fall after a Polk County district judge ruled last week that Iowa’s law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.The ruling is now on hold pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, but one gay couple was married in Des Moines last week.Sioux City Republican Steve Carlson, who posed the question to Thompson, said the new candidate’s pledge to rein in judges’ ability to set social policy was a passable compromise for some social conservatives.But Carlson, a member of the Iowa Christian Alliance board, also said most western Iowa Republicans hope to support a candidate who backs an amendment banning gay marriage.“I think that for one of these candidates to emerge and be a favorite of the Christian conservatives, we’re going to have to get more specific with these answers,” Carlson said.In the Register’s May poll, 73 percent of likely GOP caucusgoers said it was “extremely important” that, when choosing a candidate, that their preferred candidate feel the same way they do about gay marriage.Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain oppose a federal gay marriage ban. Most of the other candidates, including those campaigning aggressively in Iowa such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, favor the amendment.Before heading on a four-hour ride to Mason City, Thompson stopped in Le Mars and greeted the lunchtime regulars at Bob’s Drive-In, a burger joint in the Sioux County town.Greg Mitchell and daughter Amanda Susemihl, both GOP caucusgoers, met Thompson, who sat at their table and chatted for a few minutes as more than a dozen media members hovered nearby.“I plan to support him,” said Mitchell, who was wearing a Thompson sticker on his shirt. “I think he’s a strong leader.”Susemihl said she was undecided.Thompson spent more time with the media today, inviting reporters onto his motor coach for one-on-one and group interviews. The tall Southerner seemed relaxed and charmed the crowd in Sioux City when his 4-year-old daughter Hayden ran onto the stage and grabbed his pant leg.“That will win him some points,” said Carlson, the Sioux City Republican.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Same-sex marriages popular among couples with kids

Same-sex marriages popular among couples with kids

Same-sex marriages popular among couples with kids

Chad Skelton
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
New census data suggests one possible explanation for why same-sex couples in B.C. are deciding to get married: They're doing it for the kids.
Today, Statistics Canada released figures from the 2006 census that, for the first time, include information on married couples of the same sex. And the data shows same-sex couples with children are far more likely to get married than those without kids.
According to the census, nearly one in four lesbian married couples in B.C. (24 per cent) have a child living with them, compared with just 13 per cent of lesbian couples living common-law. Gay men are far less likely to have children than lesbians. But they, too, have a big marriage gap, with 6.8 per cent of gay married men living with kids, compared with just 0.5 per cent of unmarried gay couples.
University of B.C. law professor Fiona Kelly, who recently interviewed 49 lesbian mothers as part of a research project, said married lesbians often cite their children as a big reason they tied the knot.
"They felt it sent an important message to their children that they were committed to each other," said Kelly.
Marriage is seen by some as clarifying their parental rights, especially in cases where one woman is the biological mother and the other is not.
"In some of the families, it was their sole reason for getting married: They thought it would give their children greater social validity and perhaps greater legal protection," said Kelly.
This view may be mistaken, she said, because marriage itself does not automatically confer parental rights on someone. But some women still feel getting married helps legitimize their relationship in the view of society and the law.
"What it does do is send a very clear marriage that you intend to parent together," said Kelly.
Another factor, said Kelly, is that lesbian couples with older children are often pressured by the kids themselves to get hitched.
"Those [children] who were cognizant of the debate were sent a very strong message that marriage was a good thing and it's what gay and lesbian couples wanted," said Kelly. "So they actually started questioning their parents and saying: 'Are you going to get married?'"
Until recently, said Kelly, most children raised by lesbian couples were born as the result of a past heterosexual relationship. Now, however, the vast majority are born into a lesbian family. In part, said Kelly, that's due to lesbians coming out younger, making it less likely they will ever have a relationship with a man.
And lesbians are taking increasing advantage of sperm donors - in many cases, gay men they know - to have kids of their own. In fact, said Kelly, there is some evidence that we are in the midst of a "lesbian baby boom."
She said one fertility clinic in Vancouver told her fully one quarter of its clients are now lesbians.
Vancouver resident Elizabeth Barbeau and her partner Dawn had a commitment ceremony in 1998 and then got married in 2003, shortly after gay marriage was made legal in B.C. Last year, the couple adopted a baby boy named Isaac.
"We always knew we wanted to have kids from the beginning of our relationship," said Barbeau. "[And] we wanted the whole family to be recognized as one unit."
Barbeau said they would have got married even if they didn't want kids. But she said marriage gives her a sense of stability, which she likes.
"For me and for my family, there is a lot of security in the social recognition and legal recognition that comes from being married," said Barbeau.
Overall, the 2006 census counted 7,035 same-sex couples in B.C., of which 19.5 per cent were legally married.
Among major cities, Montreal has the highest concentration of same-sex couples in the country, with one in every 97 couples gay or lesbian. Metro Vancouver is second with one in every 105 couples gay or lesbian. And Victoria is third, with one in every 108 couples.
In Kelowna, just one in every 236 couples is gay or lesbian and in Abbotsford it's one in 253.
cskelton@png.canwest.com