No Support For Anti-Gay Amendment In Backer's Home State, Gay presence could be city's economic edge, Pride, leather abound at 'Gay Academy Awards

365GAY.COM No Support For Anti-Gay Amendment In Backer's Home State

ORLANDO SENTINEL Mike Thomas: Gay presence could be city's economic edge

ASSOCIATED PRESS New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee to hold hearing on gay marriage

ASSOCIATED PRESS Maine: Partway through a lecture by the leader of a foundation for gay Muslims, members of the Lewiston-Auburn Islamic Center distributed a statement condemning homosexuality

365GAY.COM Texas: Students who sought to organize a Gay Straight Alliance at Lubbock High School will not appeal a court ruling that said the school board could not be forced to let the group meet on campus

PALM SPRINGS DESERT SUN Pride, leather abound at 'Gay Academy Awards’

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Column: Gay marriage passes the equality test

TACOMA NEWS TRIBUNE Editorial: Marriage and the law

2,000 evangelicals rally against gay marriages in San Jose

By Putsata Reang

Mercury News


Evangelical Christians convened at a church in San Jose Sunday to rally against city leaders' recent decision to support same-sex marriages, while outside, gay and lesbian activists gathered in a small counter-protest.

About 2,000 people, mainly members of the city's largest evangelical churches, gathered at Calvary Chapel to voice their opposition to same-sex unions and applaud the efforts of national organizations fighting such marriages.

``Why we're here today is not to prove a point that we are better than anybody else. It's to prove that God was right,'' Bill Buchholz, pastor of San Jose's Family Community Church, told the gathering. ``Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sometimes you have to take a stand.''

The rally was part of a larger effort to fight the city's stance on same-sex marriages.

San Jose emerged as a touchstone for the national debate over same-sex marriages last month when it became the first city in California to recognize San Francisco's controversial same-sex unions. The city council voted 8-1 in support of a resolution to extend marriage benefits to gay and lesbian workers.

Last week, the churches said they are joining forces to bankroll a ballot measure to reverse San Jose's new policy.

Evangelical church leaders have also threatened a recall effort to oust Mayor Ron Gonzales and seven other council members who passed the resolution in support of San Francisco's same-sex marriages. The group last week hired a consultant to study the issue and collected $10,000 to fund the campaign.

Carrying signs that said ``We will not be silenced,'' about a dozen gay and lesbian advocates shivered in the cold outside the gathering to send their own message. ``I need to express myself also,'' said David West, 39, of San Jose. ``I was scared coming here, but I was more scared not to.''

San Jose's religious rally was one of two such events over the weekend organized against gay unions. In San Francisco on Saturday, about 1,000 Catholics led by the city's archdiocese marched through several downtown blocks to protest San Francisco's same-sex marriages.

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Gays find marriage a mixed bag, License doesn't guarantee benefits granted heterosexual couples

When Kory O'Rourke called her car insurance company and asked that her spouse be added to her plan, the representative on the other end of the phone "didn't blink" -- even when it became clear that O'Rourke meant her same-sex partner, whom she had just married in San Francisco.

"Oh, congratulations," the representative at the Progressive Group of Insurance Companies said. "I'm going to issue you a $78 credit, so you guys be sure to go out and have a nice dinner on us."

O'Rourke was thrilled -- but it turns out the exchange should never have taken place. In changing O'Rourke's coverage, the representative apparently violated company policy. Progressive is not officially recognizing marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, although it is investigating whether to change its policy, said spokesperson Todd Morgano.

Confusion and discrepancy are all too common, as gay newlyweds have returned home from San Francisco and other wedding-positive cities and started to demand a few of the benefits that come with marriage. The federal government has compiled a list of 1,049 rights and responsibilities contingent on marriage -- from survivor's rights to Social Security benefits. Many gay couples have begun with simple steps: asking their employers and insurers to offer them the same health care and car insurance coverage extended to married heterosexuals. The results have been decidedly mixed.

The conversation David Greer of Chicago held with a human resources employee at Dean Foods, the dairy processing and distribution company where he works, is typical of the conversations that have played out in personnel offices nationwide.

According to Greer, he explained he had married his same-sex partner in San Francisco and wanted to change his official marital status and add his new husband to his health care plan. The addition would mean Greer's partner -- who is self-employed -- would be required to pay only a fraction of the $500 monthly health insurance premium he now pays, Greer said.

The officer responded that the company doesn't offer domestic partner benefits.

"But this isn't a domestic partnership," Greer said. "This is marriage."

Acting on orders from Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February. A month later, the state Supreme Court ruled that the city had to cease issuing the licenses. The court will decide this summer whether Newsom had the authority to defy Proposition 22, the voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage as only between a man and woman.

"The courts have not declared the license illegal, so until they do, we consider the license a legal document," Greer said.

Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 4,037 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco.

After some back and forth, Dean Foods told Greer they would not recognize his partner.

Greer bridled when a personnel representative told him to be patient. "I had asked two years ago about domestic partner benefits, and I was told at that time they wouldn't be extended," he said "I felt I had been patient enough. ... I just wanted to be treated fairly."

Dean Foods responded in a statement that "the California attorney general has stated that the marriage licenses in question 'are not recognized by the State of California' and were issued 'in violation of state law.' " The company will abide by the California Supreme Court's decision, it said.

O'Rourke, an English teacher at South San Francisco High School, says she's never been an activist, but marrying her girlfriend in San Francisco changed that. "Something about standing there for five minutes and having them tell me I'm the same as everyone else," she said.

Though her spouse has health insurance coverage through her own job, O'Rourke approached the South San Francisco Unified School District's Personnel Department and asked to add her partner, Kate Sheppard, to her health plan.

She didn't hear back for almost a month, but last week -- after several calls from a reporter -- the assistant superintendent of personnel services said the district would extend equal benefits to all married employees, whether they are in a heterosexual or gay relationship. Married spouses are entitled to dental and vision coverage, benefits domestic partners do not have under the district's current plan.

"It's such a feeling of more than acceptance," O'Rourke said. "Not only do they tolerate me, they embrace me. ... It's such a gesture of good faith."

In the legal chaos the same-sex marriages have produced, some major health and car insurance companies have taken positions as follows: Kaiser Permanente, the health care provider, and AAA of Northern California, which provides auto insurance, are recognizing same-sex spouses and will continue to do so unless the state Supreme Court rules that the licenses are invalid, spokes- people said.

But State Farm Insurance, which offers car, home, health insurance, is taking the opposite tact -- the company is waiting for the court ruling this summer before changing its spousal policies, according to spokesperson Bill Sirola.

San Francisco resident Annye Bone, who works at an adult materials wholesaler in the city, said that after a bit of dogged pushing, her employers -- she did not name them for fear of upsetting supervisors -- had given her a change of status form to add her spouse to her health plan.

The company doesn't cover any part of a spouse's premium -- in this case, $283 -- but the switch is important, because Bone's provider, Health Net, pays for allergy and antidepressant medication, and her partner doesn't get that coverage on her current plan.

Bone is waiting for the paperwork to get processed. But Brad Kieffer, a spokesperson at Health Net, said the company didn't recognize same-sex marriages. California employers can opt to offer workers domestic partner coverage, he said, but a marriage license cannot be substituted for proof of domestic partnership.

It has been much less complicated for Michael Coburn, 39, of Albuquerque. He married Randy Elliott in Sandoval County in New Mexico on Feb. 20, and soon after, he asked his employer, Honeywell International, to add his spouse to his health plan. The company immediately complied with his request.

Honeywell International did not comment on their benefits policy.

The change doesn't affect Coburn financially, he said, because the company already offers domestic partner health care benefits. And every employer must treat same-sex spouses as domestic partners for tax purposes under IRS regulations. That means that unlike married heterosexuals, married gay workers must pay income tax on the value of the benefit. This is true even in cities such as San Francisco and San Jose, which both recognize the marriages of gay city employees.

But money wasn't the point for Coburn.

When he recently checked his online benefits page, he was "tickled" to find his partner listed as "spouse."

"It was essentially that simple," he said.

E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com.

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

Poll: Massachusetts Split on Gay Marriage

Associated Press


BOSTON - A poll has found that Massachusetts residents are evenly split over a state constitutional proposal that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions for same-sex couples.

A University of Massachusetts survey found that 47 percent of those asked backed the proposal, while 47 percent opposed it. The poll sample was made up of 463 state residents, 400 of whom are registered voters.

The poll, taken March 30 through April 4, beginning the day after state lawmakers approved the amendment in a constitutional convention. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Given specific choices, 40 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage, while 28 percent supported a ban on gay marriage that also would provide for civil unions. The poll found that 17 percent strongly opposed both legalizing gay marriage and authorizing same-sex civil unions.

Under the state's constitutional amendment process, the compromise measure must be approved again - in exactly the same form - during the 2005-06 legislative session before going to voters on the November 2006 ballot.

TN: Same-Sex Marriage Debates Moves To Local County

Posted: 4/5/2004 11:25:00 PM
Updated: 4/5/2004 11:27:22 PM

A Rutherford County committee approved a resolution against gay marriage. But some question whether it's a local issue.



The Rutherford County Steering Committee debated a resolution that says the county does not support gay marriage.

Sponsor Mike Sparks said the majority of his constituents are against same-sex marriage. He hopes the resolution sends a message to state legislators.

But others across the state question whether county governments should even tackle the issue.

"People believe gay bashing it the thing to do today and I think it's wrong," said Mark Lopez, a member of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports gays and lesbians on many issues.

Lopez said many recent bills and resolutions are politically motivated.

"I think the ultra-conservatives are trying to get every elected official to take a stand on this issue," Lopez said.

But Rutherford County resident Brian Frank said most people do not support same-sex marriage. He fears federal courts will make it legal in Tennessee.

"Basically, as the populous, we don't want it to boil down to the federal courts coming in and mandating that the State of Tennessee accept this," Frank said.

The committee passed the measure Monday night by a 5-0 vote. Commissioner John Rodgers abstained, arguing it was not an appropriate issue for the county government.

The resolution now goes before the full County Commission.

X-gays at it again, Club helps gay teens at school, No consensus in TN Capitol, Gay Activists Brawl With Catholic Clergy

THE GUARDIAN (London) Going straight: Revered by the religious right and bolstered by a supposedly scientific theory, a new wave of therapist-gurus claim they can 'cure' homosexuality. Their success rate is hotly contested. Decca Aitkenhead joins a rally of would-be converts in Nashville.

OMAHA WORLD-HERALD Gay police officers' partners recognized in proposed contract

SACRAMENTO BEE Club helps gay teens at school: The support groups, which are common in the state, reduce peer harassment, a report says

THE TENNESSEAN No consensus in Tennessee legislature on gay nuptials amendment

ASSOCIATED PRESS Oregon GOP favors gay-marriage vote

365GAY.COM London: Gay Activists Brawl With Catholic Clergy

MIAMI HERALD Gay groups meet to discuss hot topics; At a conference at the University of Miami on Saturday, gay and lesbian youth explore relevant issues and make new friends

BOSTON GLOBE The 'pros' have it on gay marriage: Letters to the editor run 10 to 1 in favor

ASSOCIATED PRESS 'I Am My Own Wife' Wins Drama Pulitzer

PLANET OUT (glbt) Billie Jean King promotes Gay Games

365GAY.COM Lesbian Teens More Likely To Smoke

NEW YORK TIMES 'L Word' Star Basks in an Erotic Mystery

OMAHA WORLD-HERALD Members of the Omaha City Council are seeking guidance from the city attorney on whether awarding same-sex benefits to city employees would violate the Nebraska Constitution

CHARLESTON POST & COURIER (South Carolina) Gay workers fear for their jobs; nondiscrimination policies are still scarce

WASHINGTON POST 3 University of Maryland students face disciplinary action for shouting out uncomfortable questions at Lynne Cheney speech

ASSOCIATED PRESS Conservative African Archbishop Denounces Episcopal Church's Policies on Gays

Gay groups meet to discuss hot topics - At a conference at the University of Miami on Saturday, gay and lesbian youth explore relevant issues

Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL, 33132
(Fax: 305-527-8955 or 305-376-8950 ) (E-Mail: HeraldEd@herald.com )
( http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/ )

Gay groups meet to discuss hot topics - At a conference at the University of Miami on Saturday, gay and lesbian youth explore relevant issues and make new friends.
By Rebecca DellaGloria, rdellagloria@herald.com
Seated in a semicircle, seven strangers calmly discussed on Saturday the complexities of gay marriage at the first statewide conference for gay and lesbian college students at the University of Miami.
"I think a lot of gay couples want that transcendent bond that heterosexual couples have," said Kimo Pascual, a 22-year-old UM graduate.
Added FSU student Fred Callaway: "It's not just the benefits that go along with legality, it's the recognition."
Thoughtful discussions marked the Florida Collegiate Pride Coalition Conference, sponsored by spectrUM, the university's gay organization. The conference began Friday and continues today.
Besides the moderator, all of the participants are members of campus organizations for gay students.
About 60 students from a dozen colleges and universities across the state spent the day attending workshops, like the one on gay marriage, and getting to know each other. More were expected to arrive by the end of the day.
The idea behind the conference is simple: "to unify all of the queer clubs in Florida and to get college students active in the community," said Dara Solomon, one of the event's organizers and a spectrUM member.
The need for greater education and discussion on issues facing gay youth in Florida, like the growing transgender population, was the driving force behind the coalition, dubbed FCPC.
The plan for the conference was born last summer, at another seminar for "progressive" college activists held at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.
Students from schools around the state concluded more could be accomplished – both politically and organizationally – if they had a unified front.
"It culminated with us realizing the biggest problem is that the groups at universities don't really talk to each other," said Joe Saunders, a UCF junior who was instrumental in creating the coalition. "Most of us didn't know the other groups existed."
There are now 12 colleges and universities, including UM, FIU, FSU and UF, and 16 student-led organizations, in the coalition. And more groups are forming.
The afternoon workshops included "Queering the Text," "Out and Proud on the Web" and "Psychology of Sexuality."
Most attendees gravitated toward an informational session on the issues facing transgender individuals. The Human Rights Campaign, one of the country's largest gay lobbying groups, describes transgender individuals as anyone who expresses characteristics that don't correspond with those traditionally associated with the person's sex or presumed sex.
The woman who led the panel flew in from Michigan to talk about her experiences. She identifies as a man, but has not had a sex-change operation because she said she fears her mother would disown her.
The plight of transgender people – who are often targets of discrimination – is relatively unknown, even within the gay community, said event organizer Danny Alvarez.
Alvarez said the transgender workshop was one of the most requested events when the conference was being planned.
The plan is for the conference to become an annual event, with a different college or university playing host each year.
"Hopefully, next year, wherever it is, I can bring some students to represent our school," said Jeff Manges, who is organizing a gay and lesbian group at Valencia Community College in Central Florida.
"I think it's invaluable for us to be on the same page and stay connected."

Inventing a Marriage -- and a Divorce: Gay Pair Who Wed in '70s Recall Journey Uncharted by Law

By Susan Kinzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 5, 2004; Page A01


They haven't spoken in 22 years. They live 719 miles apart, and frankly, they say, they've got other things to worry about these days. Still, as the debate over gay marriage saturates everything from presidential campaigns to barbershop banter, Wayne Schwandt and John Fortunato remember.

They remember how it was when they were young and hopeful and a little naive. And how, like thousands of gay couples today, they became swept up in a wave of social change.

Back on Nov. 21, 1976, in Northwest Washington, Schwandt and Fortunato walked down the aisle side by side, wearing matching embroidered tunics. Hundreds of friends looked on as candles and incense burned, and the room echoed with the rich tones of an organist playing "We Gather Together." Schwandt and Fortunato exchanged the silver rings they had designed. They promised to laugh and cry with one another, to stay together through strength and weakness, to love and honor for as long as they both shall live.

Reporters wrote about what Fortunato and Schwandt called a holy union, which was controversial not because there was talk of legalizing gay marriage but because the two men publicly asked for -- and were denied -- the blessing of the Episcopal Church.

"It was a wonderful day," Fortunato recalled. Then he laughed, thinking about the photos he has in an album, stored for now in a church basement in Chicago.

Like nearly half of all legal marriages, it didn't last.

No one expects to fall out of love. So even at a time when people across the country are arguing about what marriage really means, one question has gone largely unasked: What happens when it's over?

Some attorneys say the most important part of marriage comes when it ends, through death or breakup.

That's when the law provides structure, guidance, protection. With so many couples together without that legal framework -- with same-sex marriages that may be challenged in court or in Congress, domestic partnerships and civil unions that may not be recognized in other states -- the lines are shifting.

For all the gay men and lesbians who rushed to get married in San Francisco and elsewhere in recent months, most haven't fully thought out all the details, even those who have been together for years, said Frederick Hertz, one of a growing number of California lawyers with expertise in gay breakups.

"There were more calls to caterers than to lawyers," he said. "But they are actually transforming their relationships in legal ways they don't understand."

To Hertz, who is gay, while all the unknowns are confusing, they are sure signs of progress. Gay couples own homes together, share businesses, adopt children. And, Hertz predicts, they will be calling lawyers. "I see this as a testament to the strength of our community," he said. "Gay couples now have the problems straight couples have."

Schwandt got a divorce, a legal one, in the early 1970s after he came out as a gay man. A seminary student, he was too poor to have anything to fight over, he said. "It was straightforward -- non-contested divorce, irreconcilable differences: $250." His wife of four years got custody of their young son.

Schwandt met Fortunato at a union of two women at Metropolitan Community Church in Northwest Washington, a mostly gay fellowship. At the receiving line, someone who knew Fortunato said to Schwandt, "This one you can kiss."

It was the '70s, another time when people were redefining love and commitment.

Their connection was immediate. "They both were very articulate, intelligent, attractive, dynamic people," said Carole Crumley, a parishioner at their Episcopal church, St. Stephen and the Incarnation. "Very much dedicated to service and care for others."

Schwandt was a tall Wisconsin farm boy, friendly and idealistic, just out of seminary and working as a secretary. Fortunato, who went to prep school in Boston, was funny and intellectual, an accomplished organist and philosophy major working as a technical writer. They were in their twenties.

Looking back, Fortunato said, they were very much in love but also caught up in a surge of activism at their Mount Pleasant church. St. Stephen and the Incarnation was the church where feminist Gloria Steinem and confrontational black leader H. Rap Brown had preached, where the first U.S. public Communion by a female priest was given. It was also where the church leadership almost committed to sanctifying the union of Fortunato and Schwandt.

In the end, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington forbade the church from performing the union at St. Stephen. So the congregation moved the ceremony, with traditional Episcopal rites, to First Congregational Church, where Metropolitan Community Church met.

Relationship-Turned-Cause


It was the spiritual, not the legal, side of marriage that was important to them, Schwandt recalled more than 25 years later. They wanted the blessing of the church and hardly thought about the state. "I was naive," Schwandt said. "I would not have understood what the 'legal protections of the law' would have meant.' "

Their union had no legal standing, but they hyphenated their names. "We were crazy," Fortunato said. "It doesn't even fit on a credit card." He recalled trying to reason with irate Department of Motor Vehicles workers to change his name on his driver's license.

He also remembers the hate mail, the obscene phone calls that came after D.C. newspapers and TV stations covered their story. Maury Povich, then a D.C. television journalist, interviewed them. Reporters waited outside the church for a statement, and a Washington Post writer spent time with them after the ceremony for a long feature article.

But there was no organized opposition to the idea outside of the church; most people hadn't even imagined gay marriage then, said William R. MacKaye, who was a lay leader at St. Stephen and an editor at The Washington Post at the time. "Their heads weren't around where this might be going."

Fortunato and Schwandt had never wanted their union to be so public, Crumley said. But they weren't men who would try to hide from the truth or lie about who they were. All the controversy, all the publicity, turned it into a cause, not just a relationship.

"And in the end, five years later," Fortunato said, "it wasn't a good relationship."

So several years and a couple of therapists later, they had to write their own ending. "It was excruciatingly painful," Fortunato said.

Their relationship had been, for Schwandt, a chance to say to the world that he had finally come to know himself. "Then for that to fail -- I think we each wanted to blame somebody," he said. "It was very hard, the loss of this dream we had both struggled so hard to create for us."

Schwandt bought Fortunato's half of the house. And they spent hours sorting through their things, sitting on the floor of their library, going book by book, dividing them up into mine and yours.

"We had to invent our divorce," Schwandt said, "just like we had to invent our marriage."

Fortunato wrote a book. After all the publicity about their holy union, he figured he had nothing to lose. In it, he made the case that gays don't have to be accepted in the mainstream to do good. "Do what Christ called us to do," he explained recently, "which is to care for each other passionately, extravagantly, maybe even recklessly."

He spent years after their breakup as a monk.

He received a doctorate in clinical psychology and graduate degrees in pastoral psychology and divinity and began his decades of practice as a psychologist in the Midwest. The publicity from his union with Schwandt pushed him to write and become a public speaker, even though he doesn't like crowds. "I had to find some way to redeem it, make it fruitful," he said.

What their union didn't give him was a conviction that gay marriage is the answer. He believes the word "marriage" shouldn't be used, since for ages it has meant the joining of a man and a woman, he said.

He would like to see gay couples able to get a legal document -- especially after years of working with HIV-positive people, seeing men shut out of hospitals and funerals. "I prefer that we use the term 'holy union' -- and I think a denomination has every right to debate, decide whether or not to bless that union."

And he'd like to see more people thinking about what's ahead. "So many people come to therapy thinking, 'If only I could find the right person, I'd live happily ever after.' It's not true. It's hard work to be in a relationship."

Fortunato is 56 now and single, happily so. He's finishing a new house in Joliet, Ill., deeply committed to the counseling he does with poor people, and reading theology.

He laughed and paraphrased Henry Higgins of "Pygmalion": "I'm a committed old bachelor, and likely to remain so."

A Simple Promise


In the mid-1980s, Schwandt met Chuck Riley. Schwandt asked him whether he liked classical music, because Schwandt had season tickets to the symphony. Riley, who hated classical music, said, "Do I like classical music!"

Riley hurried to the library, listened to tapes of Mahler's "Resurrection" and read about the composer. "In our relationship . . . I'm sort of like the capitalistic pig and he is the minister who wants to save the world," said Riley, a successful real estate agent.

They exchanged rings and vows, alone, by the altar of a church years ago. They didn't ask for the sanction of church or state, just promised to stay together.

Schwandt spent years trying to be ordained an Episcopal priest, asking for an affirmation, finally resigning himself to a ministry outside the mainstream at Metropolitan Community Church. That's the fight that almost broke him, he said, not gay marriage.

Like Fortunato, he sees politics in President Bush's proposal for a constitutional ban. He supports gay marriage, particularly for its legal protections. But this isn't his cause now.

"I'm living it," he said.

Home now is a big white house in Washington with oriental rugs and crystal, a sunroom full of orchids and calla lilies and a cat named Booper. At the entrance, the brass door knocker is engraved Riley Schwandt.

This winter will be their 20th anniversary.

Part of Schwandt's role as a minister is to offer counseling to couples, and when he talks about his own relationship now, he's more likely to speak in practical than in romantic terms; the champagne-bubbles delirium of first love is one thing -- lifelong commitment is something else entirely.

The word compromise keeps coming up.

"I recently woke up and wondered how I got to be in a 20-year relationship," said Schwandt, who's 54 now, old enough to have seen Riley's children from an early marriage grow up and bring grandchildren into their lives.

"It's a long time . . . especially in this day and age. We live in a transient society -- everything is disposable," he said.

Like most couples, Riley and Schwandt didn't start out worried about what might happen if their relationship ended. But a few years ago, they went to lawyers and began the ponderous work of creating a legal patchwork, drafting living wills, powers of attorney, medical directives. They divided up their belongings, bit by bit.

Even Schwandt's books are accounted for. They'll go to a dear friend, another minister.

With the ending already written, they can get back to the present: They have an anniversary to celebrate.

"We're going to have a hell of a party this December," Schwandt said, pausing. Booper climbed up to the back of Schwandt's chair, curled up in the sun behind his head. "We might have a wedding."



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Civil unions no longer enough in same sex marriage debate

North Adams Transcript



By Erik Arvidson
Transcript Statehouse Bureau

Monday, April 05, 2004 - BOSTON -- Just six months ago, before a landmark court ruling sparked a riveting debate about gay rights in the Legislature, advocates for same sex marriage rights would have considered a civil unions law an undeniable victory.

Only two years ago, it would have been considered a meaningful progression in the rights of gay and lesbian couples if lawmakers had approved a bill authorizing limited benefits for domestic partners of the same sex.

Indeed, last October, after one of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's top lieutenants, Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty of Chelsea, said there might be an opportunity this session to create civil unions, gay rights supporters were hopeful, but circumspect.

"It's very encouraging that someone like Gene O'Flaherty is supportive of civil unions and wants to try and help move forward on a solution to the problem of this injustice," Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said at the time. "He is well respected by his colleagues, so we're very appreciative that he's taken this position."

Expectations of the Legislature changed dramatically after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that it was unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses. Yet even lawmakers who support gay marriage acknowledge that the constitutional amendment approved last Monday -- which defines marriage as heterosexual but creates civil unions -- was important symbolically.

"I came back disappointed. But whether or not one agrees with gay marriage, it was an historic vote on civil unions, and it was a step forward," said state Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, a supporter of marriage rights for same-sex couples. "We're light years from where it was to where it is now."

The constitutional amendment was approved by a 105-92 vote, and must be approved a second time at a Constitutional Convention next year.

It would then be placed on the 2006 ballot where it must be approved by the voters. If approved, Massachusetts would become just the second state, along with Vermont, to establish civil unions, which confer some of the rights and protections of wedlock to same sex couples, but not full legal marriage.

The amendment also guarantees that same sex couples will, at the very least, have greatly expanded rights and benefits regardless of what happens after May 17, when the SJC decision becomes effective.

Though like many gay marriage supporters he views the constitutional amendment as discriminatory because it separates gay and lesbians to a lower class of citizenship, Bosley said he believes attitudes toward gays and lesbians are changing in the Legislature.

"I'm encouraged. I think there has been a real evolution. There has been much more of a dialogue for the average person," Bosley said. "You have to look at this in the context of other social changes. It was 60 years between women's suffrage to getting the right to vote. It was 100 years between Emancipation and the Voting Rights Act."

State Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat and one of three openly gay members of the Legislature, said the number of lawmakers who wanted to give equal marriage rights to same sex couples expanded dramatically during the debate.

Barrios noted that at the beginning of the debate Feb. 11, many gay marriage supporters thought it possible that an outright ban on gay marriage might be approved.

"The opposition to putting discrimination into the constitution has grown tremendously in the Legislature, and has grown in the public as well," Barrios said. "People have become much more sophisticated about what we're doing, and understand that we're not talking about religious marriages. People are thinking differently."

That both Finneran and Gov. Mitt Romney would support a constitutional amendment that included language setting up civil unions while banning gay marriage is meaningful, according to gay rights advocates.

State Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, the primary supporter of the measure that only banned gay marriage, also voted in favor of the constitutional amendment creating civil unions, out of necessity to keep the intent of the ballot question alive.

Like many of his legislative colleagues, Barrios wondered whether long-standing opponents of any kind of expansion of gay rights voted strategically, or if they had a change of heart.

"Clearly, the people in the middle won. The people who stand on principle, for or against putting discrimination in the constitution, lost," Barrios said. "We take some solace knowing that the other side lost, too. The middle is not voting to make an ideological point, but sees this as a stepping point to move to the next level."

Finneran has been viewed by most liberal lawmakers as being the biggest hurdle for any expansion of gay rights in the Legislature. For three consecutive legislative sessions, the Senate approved a bill that would provide health insurance coverage to the partners of gay and lesbian employees and municipal workers, but Finneran blocked the legislation from coming up for a vote in the House.

The law, which was already in effect in several other states, would have been a local option for cities and towns, and mirrored benefits that were available to workers at many major employers. Though gay rights advocates said accused Finneran of single-handedly blocking the measures, the speaker said there were not enough votes in the House for the plan.

In the summer of 1998, the city of Boston submitted a home rule petition to extend domestic partner benefits to the partners of gay municipal employees.

Finneran said that the bill would result in "overt discrimination" against single workers who were heterosexual, and that it would give an "exalted status to some people because of sexual orientation."

The bill eventually was approved by both the House and Senate, but then- Gov. Paul Cellucci vetoed it. Romney, a Republican, has publicly favored giving expanded rights and benefits to partners of gay public sector employees, but he has opposed full-fledged marriage rights for same sex couples.

Though he earlier spoke out against civil unions, Romney threw his support behind the constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage but created civil unions, and was able to rustle up the necessary Republican votes in the Legislature to get it approved.

State Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., D-Pittsfield, a supporter of marriage rights for same sex couples, said many members of the Legislature had probably not fully thought out their position on same sex marriages until the court decision.

"We've had to deal with issues related to domestic partners, the adoption of children, laws of child custody, and have had to think about and weigh in on those issues," Nuciforo said. "But I think most members had given the topic very little thought prior to the SJC decision."

Nuciforo said the Senate votes on domestic partnership bills did not require a lot of soul searching on his part. "The members of the Senate didn't need to think long and hard about the issue. We felt it was a matter of fairness and equity," Nuciforo said. "The ruling really forced the Legislature to have to confront civil marriage."

State Rep. Peter J. Larkin, D-Pittsfield, who supports defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, agreed that many legislators never gave same sex marriage much thought.

"It wasn't an issue that really came before us in a really strong way," Larkin said.

He said he is now supportive of the concept of civil unions, but had always opposed it in the past.

2 women lead legal battle for gay nuptials

Joan Ryan
Sunday, April 4, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


The two women are 46 years old, one black, one white, born six months apart on opposite sides of the country. One is from the housing projects in Queens, N.Y., the other a middle-class, third-generation San Franciscan. Both are the second of six children and the products of public high schools.

Neither imagined, when they met at work a dozen years ago, that they would one day find themselves leading a case that could change the course of civil rights in America.

Terri Stewart is the chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco. She took the job two years ago, leaving behind a successful partnership at the San Francisco law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin.

Bobbie Wilson is a partner at Howard Rice. Stewart was her mentor when she arrived at the firm fresh from law school in 1992 at the ripe old age of 33.

Together, the two friends and former colleagues are the lead attorneys in San Francisco's court battle to legalize same-sex marriage.

"I never could have predicted this,'' said Wilson, sitting on the couch in her office. Poised and polished, she still has the streets of Queens in her voice. Despite having never met a lawyer in her Queensbridge public housing complex, she always knew she would be a lawyer.

"I knew it like I knew my name,'' she said.

She took an unusual route. She had to drop out of state college in upstate New York after two years to help her family financially. She worked mornings at a bagel shop and nights for the college's campus security. Then she moved back to Queens and worked as a private detective and a polygraph tester, finishing her degree through night classes at Queens College. At age 30, she started Columbia Law School, paying for it with scholarships, grants and loans.

At Columbia, Wilson had read a National Law Journal article about the compassion with which Howard Rice dealt with one of their lawyers who was dying from AIDS. She remembered, in particular, reading about a lawyer named Terri Stewart, who was active in gay rights issues. As a black lesbian, Wilson figured that was the place for her.

When she started at the firm, she and Stewart became fast friends, with Stewart guiding Wilson in the male-dominated world of law.

"She was a much more junior lawyer than I was, but she had life experience I didn't have, so we mentored each other,'' Stewart said, sitting in her office overlooking Civic Center Plaza.

Their desks are about a mile apart -- one in San Francisco City Hall, the other on the ninth floor of Embarcadero 3 -- but they looked nearly identical, buried under the same stacks of legal briefs, books and binders. Stewart picked up a stack the state's attorney general had just dumped on them, a motion to consolidate the several suits challenging San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"Every day, there's something new,'' she said, smiling. "The real issue is, when can a public official decide what the law requires when there's a conflict between two laws?''

In the city's view, Newsom broke the state law that bans same-sex marriage in order to uphold the state constitution, which prohibits discrimination. It's the kind of case Stewart never expected to land in her lap. She attended Terra Linda High School in San Rafael and then went to Cornell University, the first in her family to leave home for college. She graduated from UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.

"When I was a kid, I had this vision of myself in a man's suit with a briefcase,'' she said. "I think I thought I had good ideas on how to run the world.''

When Newsom issued the marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February and City Attorney Dennis Herrera tapped Stewart to lead the legal team, Stewart immediately called Wilson to join her.

"Bobbie's fearless,'' Stewart said. "There is nothing I couldn't trust her with.'' (Wilson is leading a small team at Howard Rice that is working for the city pro bono.)

Since the legal battle began, Wilson has found herself straddling the worlds of black, and gay and lesbian culture. She is blunt in answering criticisms from African Americans who balk at comparing the black civil rights with gay rights.

"It isn't entirely the same, but it doesn't need to be,'' she said. "Oppression is oppression. I tell (black people), 'Giving gay people rights doesn't diminish your own rights.' The Constitution was founded on protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You can't find any more classic example of that than this. Because a group in the majority doesn't like the minority group for religious or moral reasons isn't a reason for the government to take part in that bias.''

For Stewart, the case is both personal and professional. She has a longtime partner whom she wed in an unofficial ceremony in 1995. When the line of same-sex couples snaked around City Hall that first weekend the clerk was issuing licenses, Stewart gathered up her papers and told her colleagues she would be working at home.

"If I stayed and watched, I'd be blubbering all over the floor,'' she said. She and her partner didn't get married because "emotionally it would bring me to a place I can't afford to be because I'm going to be in the thick of it.'' Her partner agreed.

"She said to me, 'When you win, then we'll get married,' '' Stewart said, laughing. "Right, thanks, hon. No pressure.''

Back on the ninth floor of Embarcadero 3, Wilson thought about why she and Stewart might be exactly the right people at the right time to fight this historic battle.

"There are people more knowledgeable about this. There are people who are more politically savvy,'' she said. "But no two people are more tenacious than Terry and I. We have a dog-with-a-bone mentality. We've both worked hard to overcome things in our lives, which gives you the determination to say, 'OK, you can do this, too. Roll up your sleeves and let's have at it.' ''

E-mail Joan Ryan at joanryan@sfchronicle.com.

Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Military cadet makes history with wedding, 19-year-old first armed forces gay to take a husband, Couple celebrates with front-row concert tickets

SUTTON EAVES
STAFF REPORTER

As far as his fiancé was concerned, Officer Cadet Jason Stewart was planning a simple weekend getaway to Toronto.

But when a white stretch limo rolled up outside Joey Schwehr's Kingston, Ont., home Friday afternoon, he realized it was much more than that. It became the much-anticipated weekend they would say their vows, making Stewart, who attends Kingston's Royal Military College, the first man in the military to marry another man.

"The first time we went on a date, (Joey) said he wanted to be picked up in a white stretch limo with white roses in the back and be surprised," said Stewart, 19, from the Fairmont Royal York hotel yesterday afternoon, just hours after they were wed.

Accompanied by a few close friends, the two were married at city hall. Last night, they celebrated at the Britney Spears concert after finding front-row tickets for $150 apiece.

While neither of their families attended the wedding, Stewart said both groups are happy for them. "They knew we were engaged and going to get married. (Joey's) father took it well. I think his mother was a little upset that she wasn't going to be there for it," Stewart said.

But both of their parents, as well as about 300 friends and family, will be present when the two reaffirm their vows at the military college in October.

"Everyone's always been really supportive," said Stewart of his peers and teachers at the college. "I've never gotten any flack about it. Everybody's just gung-ho and most of my superiors are more worried about me getting married at a young age than who I'm getting married to."

Stewart and Schwehr, 20, dated for a little over four months after being set up on a blind date. They said their connection was instant. "It was so special. I just knew ... it's hard to explain, but I just knew. Every moment right from there, it was great," said Schwehr, who works at a clothing store in Kingston.

Since they met, Stewart said the two have spent every day together. He proposed to Schwehr at work about a month ago.

"Since I started dating when I was about 16, I probably hadn't really been in love before until I met Joey," Stewart said. "We definitely wouldn't have gotten married if we didn't think we were perfect for each other."

When he told his mother last month that he was gay and he was getting married, she wasn't surprised. Unsure of how his father, a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia, would react, she offered to tell him when he got home from work. A few hours later, Stewart got a phone call.

"My dad called me up and the only thing he said was, `Just tell Joey he's gotta look after us when we get older,'" said Stewart. "So they took it very well."

Same-sex couples taking alternate route to weddings, Some travel to Oregon, while others opt to have commitment ceremonies in S.F.

Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, April 3, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle


The city of San Francisco is no longer issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but the wedding party isn't over. It's just moved.

Many of the thousands of couples who had appointments to wed their same- sex partners at City Hall -- but were left out in the cold after the state Supreme Court halted the marriages -- are making alternate plans. Some are heading north and tying the knot in Portland, Ore. Others are defiantly marrying on their appointed day, even though they have no official papers.

"We had rings ordered, plane tickets bought, hotel reservations, so we decided that the decision to make the commitment to each other had not changed, " said Sara Schildknecht, 26, a retail store manager from Irving, Texas. "We decided to go out and have a commitment ceremony there anyway."

Instead of marrying at City Hall on March 26, she and her partner, Amy Wethington, went to the Castro and exchanged vows below the rainbow flag in Harvey Milk Plaza. They stood inside a glittery heart that some acquaintances -- friendly San Franciscans they just met -- had scattered on the sidewalk.

The brief ceremony included mention of God -- a nod to religion that could not have happened if they had married in City Hall, Schildknecht pointed out. "That way, even if the state doesn't believe it's real, in the eyes of God it is," she said.

Before and after the ceremony, the couple rented a limousine and toured every hot spot they could dream up -- from Coit Tower to the Golden Gate Bridge -- taking wedding photos all the way. They ended up before City Hall's gilded doors.

"At least here in Dallas, what we saw in news was people in front of City Hall with marriage licenses," Schildknecht said. "We didn't have licenses, but we took the pictures in front of City Hall anyway."

Ian Michael Enriquez had an appointment to get married in San Francisco in mid-April -- a month too late. He and his partner considered heading to Portland instead, but friends and family had already made plans to attend their ceremony, and skipping town felt wrong. "San Francisco is home to us, and to have to go someplace else wasn't good enough," Enriquez said. "I don't want Oregonians or Canadians or Belgians to recognize my relationship. I want people here to recognize my relationship."

The couple is planning to marry at 8:30 a.m. April 15 -- as they originally planned. "I'm going to honor my side of it," he said. "If City Hall can't, then that's the way it is."

The San Francisco marriages were halted the day before Ronald Bowser and Steven Pinkerton, postmasters from neighboring cities in Kansas, were to marry. They didn't hear the news until they had flown into town with wedding outfits and rings for the big event. The disappointed couple spent the weekend in the Bay Area anyway, but soon after returning home, they turned around and took another wedding voyage to Portland. This time, they drove.

The couple, who have been together nearly 28 years, already have a Vermont civil union. They also were talking about going to Massachusetts in May, working under a philosophy that more is merrier and also more legally sound. But they are rethinking that plan since the state attorney general's announcement earlier this week that Massachusetts wouldn't marry couples from states with laws banning same-sex marriage.

Anne Skeffington, who lives in the East Bay, also turned to Portland when her San Francisco plans were quashed. After the state Supreme Court issued a stay, she and her partner "ranted and raved and wept around the house," she said. Then they canceled the reception they'd planned at their home and decided to get on with it.

"We knew the bottom line was for us was to get married," Skeffington said. A few days later, they boarded a plane and flew north.

The couple were married by a rabbi on the banks of the Willamette River on a sunny afternoon. Afterward, they headed to a famous cake shop and had a champagne lunch topped off with a whipped cream, strawberry and banana meringue cake.

Multnomah County in Oregon has not been tracking the number of couples traveling from the Bay Area, but Rebekah Kassell at Basic Rights Oregon, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, said their office fielded around 10 calls every day from people who were supposed to marry in San Francisco but were shut out by the court's decision.

On Thursday, after three days of public testimony from approximately 220 Oregon citizens, the Multnomah County commissioners voted 4-1 in favor of a resolution affirming the decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So far, more than 2,800 same-sex couples have married in Portland. "It turned out to be the perfect thing to do," said Skeffington. "It took away the sadness of not being able to get married in our own city. The wedding wasn't what it was supposed to be, but in the end, it came back to what it's really about, which is the commitment of two people."

E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com.

Mulling way to stop gay weddings, As SJC appeal ruled out, Romney eyes his options

By Scott S. Greenberger and Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff

LITTLETON -- Rebuffed by Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, Governor Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he won't be able to get a judicial stay to block weddings of same-sex couples beginning May 17. But the governor emphasized that he is exploring other avenues to block the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples.

"He's made his decision; I'm not going to pursue that further," Romney said of Reilly's refusal to seek a delay of the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage, which takes effect on May 17. "Of course, I'm also considering other options. I don't have anything to report in that regard, but stay tuned."

Lawmakers and activists on both sides of the issue suggest that Romney may be weighing several options, including an executive order to block the issuance of licenses to gay couples; proposing a law to prevent issuance of those licenses; or backing another bill, being pushed this week, that would abolish marriage entirely and create civil unions for heterosexual couples, as well as gay couples.

On Monday, the Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and establish civil unions. But lawmakers must pass it a second time in the 2005-06 legislative session, and voters must approve it, before the constitution would be amended. The earliest the measure could appear on the ballot is November 2006, and gay-marriage opponents are determined to prevent same-sex marriages from taking place between May and that date.

There is "a whole series of options that have been brought forward by various groups within our state, outside the state, law firms, legislators" to stop gay marriages in May, Romney said, though he declined to detail the options or who is suggesting them.

Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage and a leading opponent of same-sex marriage, praised Romney's efforts. Crews said he believes there are ways the governor can stop same-sex marriages from taking place, though he said he doesn't know what they are.

Many legal analysts disagree.
"This all sounds like wishful thinking to me: 'I don't want to do this, therefore there must be some way for me to avoid having to do it,'" said Andrew Koppelman, professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. "I have no doubt the governor wishes he had other options, but that's not a legal argument. You litigate, you lose, and at some point you have to admit that you've lost and go on with life."

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the Republican governor is playing to a national audience. Isaacson said Romney, who is thought to have higher political aspirations, is determined to prevent gay marriages on his watch.

"Romney will do anything in his power or beyond to thwart the issuance of those marriage licenses," said Isaacson. "He will push the envelope administratively, perhaps by issuing an executive order to the Department of Public Health banning them from issuing marriage licenses. That would be unconstitutional. He's desperate to do anything to prove to the national right-wing audience that he would try to stop gay marriage."

Romney, who spoke to reporters following a speech on development, declined to comment on a specific idea now making the rounds on Beacon Hill, a bill that would take the state out of the marriage business by creating civil unions for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.

Under the proposal, the state would issue licenses for civil unions, with identical rights and benefits, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, while churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions would perform marriage ceremonies. Clergy members could officiate at the marriage of any couple they choose. That system would let religious groups that object to gay marriage refuse to perform the ceremony.

The proposal, being circulated in draft form by Representative Paul Loscocco, a Holliston Republican, closely resembles the system set up by the government of France, which has separated the civil and religious aspects of marriage while allowing same-sex couples a full array of rights and benefits. Loscocco, a harsh critic of the proposed amendment approved by the Legislature Monday, said his bill would address perceived problems with the amendment: that it creates a "separate but equal" system for same-sex couples and that it fails to address concerns of churches and synagogues that they might be forced to marry same-sex couples.

"It's absolutely radical, but it's consistent," Loscocco said. "In my view, this is something the Legislature has to weigh. There is going to be confusion and acrimony as people fight, whether they realize it or not, over a word. Words mean things, but to a certain degree, the problem here is that the word [marriage] has meaning religiously. I am confident that we in the Commonwealth can call this institution whatever we want, as long as it is clearly the legal equivalent of marriage."

Loscocco said a handful of lawmakers on both sides of the gay-marriage issue have expressed interest in his proposal.
Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, said he might like Loscocco's bill because it gets rid of the "separate but equal" problems inherent in the proposed constitutional amendment. Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, a Chelsea Democrat who opposes gay marriage, said he is interested in protecting the freedom of religious institutions to conduct marriages as they see fit. Both lawmakers, however, said they need to see more details of Loscocco's proposal before endorsing the idea.

A lawyer for the Catholic Church and one who represents gay couples pushing for the right to marry said they have little interest in Loscocco's idea, even if lawmakers are intrigued by it. Another catch: Senate leaders, who were the driving force behind the constitutional amendment approved Monday, are skeptical, too.

"In order for the Legislature to do something, we need a dance partner," O'Flaherty said. "Institutionally, even though the idea may have more than a little merit, I don't know if there's an appetite for this right now."
• Yvonne Abraham of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

Gay Marriage to Be Issue in Mass. Election

By JENNIFER PETER
Associated Press Writer


BOSTON (AP)--Gay rights supporters are training activists to become door-to-door campaigners. Conservatives are planning a legislative guide for voters.

Both sides already are gearing up for the fall legislative elections as they jockey for influence in the fight over a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

After the state's highest court said Massachusetts couldn't ban such marriages, the Legislature adopted a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban them but also would legalize civil unions for gay couples.

It was adopted by only a four-vote margin, and lawmakers who will be elected this fall must pass it again--in the exact same form--during the 2005-06 legislative session before it can go to voters on the November 2006 ballots.

Advocates on both sides have started surveying voters, analyzing lawmakers' records and recruiting candidates.

``We will be doing everything we can, knocking on doors, helping candidates get their signatures gathered, doing fund-raising,'' said Michael Carl, president of The Heritage Alliance, a political action committee he formed to field candidates to run against legislators who support gay marriage.

``The issue of marriage is too fundamental to the cultural makeup to leave it to those who want to redefine it for their own reasons,'' Carl said.

Last weekend, in the days leading up to the final phase of the legislature's vote on the amendment, gay-rights activists trained volunteers as they fanned out through neighborhoods in metropolitan Boston.

``The gay and lesbian community was very politically disenfranchised and disengaged for the past few decades, but through the constitutional convention they have realized that people can really make a difference if they speak out and get involved,'' said Josh Friedes of the pro-gay marriage Freedom to Marry Coalition. ``We are seeing an increase in the level of activism and that bodes well for the future.''

They got some strong reactions in the blue-collar East Boston neighborhood.

``I'm not interested in that (stuff). I'm 90 years old, I'm going to worry about that?'' one man said before slamming the door.

But lifelong East Boston resident Victor Bono, 50, agreed to sign a form letter supporting the Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized gay marriage, which will be sent to state Senate President Robert Travaglini, a Democrat from East Boston.

Bono said he understood that gays ``have as much right to be happy as anyone else.''

The Coalition for Marriage, an umbrella group for organizations opposed to gay marriage, plans to reactivate phone banks that were used throughout the constitutional convention--which took place intermittently over the past two months--to urge residents to contact their lawmakers and lobby against homosexual marriage.

A conservative group, the Massachusetts Family Institute, has said it will develop its first voter guide listing candidates' positions on gay marriage and other social issues.

``We are hopeful that we will be able to keep people informed and energized to work in the political process as they did in the legislative process,'' said Ron Crews, the organization's leader, who plans to work for both Republicans and Democrats who oppose gay marriage. ``This is one of the elections that could become a defining moment for our state.''

In a state where a third of the 200 legislative seats weren't contested in the last elections two years ago, the gay-marriage debate--combined with Republican effort to make inroads in the predominantly Democratic Legislature--could lead to a level of competition not seen for decades.

``This year the exception to the rule will be the incumbent who doesn't have a challenger,'' said Jane Lane, spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party.

TN Advocates want school dialog on gay students' fears

commercialappeal.com - Memphis, TN


By Mark Weber


By Jody Callahan
Contact
April 3, 2004

Christina Lutey told only a small group of friends, thinking they would keep her confidence.

Somehow, her most important secret - that she was gay - got out anyway.


Soon, Lutey says, the girls in her Craigmont High gym class started going to the other side of the locker room when she walked in. People in hallways started saying things. Others gave strange looks.

"My major problem was in gym class, when I would go to change. All the other girls would, like, run to the other side of the room," said Lutey, now 21. "They didn't want to be anywhere near me. I finally wound up having to skip class or change in a toilet stall so people would leave me alone."

Craigmont officials declined to comment on Lutey's remarks, or those of Trevor Rush, a former Craigmont student who also says he was harassed there.

But because other students have reported similar problems in area schools, Len Piechowski - a leader in the local gay and lesbian community - is meeting with Memphis City Schools officials in hopes of organizing a "Safe Schools Project."

The project's goal, Piechowski said, would be to make schools more tolerant of gay and lesbian students.

"We want to open up dialog about the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students," said Piechowski, who also serves as Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton's unpaid liaison to the gay community. "At this point, that's pretty much it. The long-range goal is to, just like the name implies, to be able to build a school system climate that is tolerant."

While the project is in its earliest stages, Piechowski hopes city school officials will let him meet with area principals later this year for a presentation on tolerance and awareness.

So far, he's met twice with Suzanne Kelly, chief of staff for the school system, to talk about his concerns. He hasn't had discussions with Shelby County or any area private schools.

County school spokesman Mike Tebbe said he wasn't aware of any harassment complaints from gay or lesbian students, but said the system's discipline policies would address such issues.

"No threat is something that would be tolerated," Tebbe said. "We don't tolerate any inappropriate behavior, whether it's threatening behavior or simply saying something derogatory."

Kelly, the city schools' administrator, said talks are in the earliest stages.

"We talked really in the realm of professional development types of training," she said. "I think he is certainly willing to put together some professional development in-service, that will be a part of our larger in-service training."

City school board member Lora Jobe wonders if such a widespread effort is necessary.

"I would say it sounds very worthwhile, but at the same time, I haven't heard this as a big problem in Memphis city schools," she said. "It may be more appropriate to present that to principals at schools where this man has heard there are problems."

Although Piechowski's efforts are locally based, similar projects have sprouted around the country, including the Safe Schools Coalition (www.safeschoolscoalition. org).

That group began in Seattle, but now works across the country, using a variety of methods.

"We can send an intervention specialist in to meet directly with a principal or superintendent, or sit with a child while he makes a police report if he's afraid to do it on his own," said Beth Reis, a spokesman for the Seattle-based group. "Organizations like ours can also sometimes offer materials for actual use in the classroom."

Lutey hopes that if such a proposal can be enacted locally, it might help other gay and lesbian students avoid the emotional upheaval she went through.

"I was angry, and I just felt really alone and sad. I really didn't want to have to be there. I begged and pleaded to stay home and play sick. Anything to get out of there," she said.

"I think it's a good idea because that way, you have teachers you can go to," she said. "You won't get blamed for telling someone about who you are, and getting bullied for it."

- Jody Callahan: 529-6531

Copyright 2004, commercialappeal.com - Memphis, TN. All Rights Reserved.

GA Battle lines drawn on gay marriage

By JIM THARPE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/01/04

Both sides in Georgia's gay marriage battle began plotting their next moves Thursday, one day after the state Legislature approved a Nov. 2 referendum to let voters decide on a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex unions.

The Christian Coalition of Georgia, which won a major victory with Wednesday's 122-52 vote in the House of Representatives, and Georgia Equality, the state's largest gay rights organization, both said they will take the next phase of the fight directly to voters.

"We're going to do a real push, primarily through the churches," said Sadie Fields, executive director of the Christian Coalition.

Fields said the proposed constitutional amendment will be prominently addressed in the coalition's legislative report this summer and its fall voter guide. The former details how lawmakers have voted "on issues important to the family," while the latter contrasts candidates' positions on various issues.

"Last year we did half a million, and I would project this year we will distribute three-quarters of a million to a million," Fields said of the group's voter guide.

Vote 'energized' gays

Meanwhile, Georgia Equality officials said they plan a series of town hall meetings throughout the state as part of their push to defeat the amendment at the ballot box.

"Our focus is to have an ongoing dialogue with voters and one-to-one contact with people across the state," said Allen Thornell, executive director of Georgia Equality. "But our focus is not just on the election. We look at this as one of the steps on the way toward true equality."

The legislation that set up the referendum passed Wednesday night by just two votes more than the two-thirds majority needed for a proposed constitutional amendment.

The closeness of the House vote, which followed Senate approval by more than a month, "energized" the gay community, said Sharon Semmens, who chairs the Georgia Equality board.

"We believe we fought well," Semmens said. "And we believe we kept it very close. It was neck and neck down to the wire. And that is a good sign for Georgia and its move toward progressive politics and not the politics of division and hatred."

Wednesday's vote came after three months of controversy over the issue. Conservatives said they are trying to protect traditional marriage from assaults by "activist judges," while gay rights supporters said lawmakers were trying to incorporate discrimination in the Georgia Constitution.

Debate rages nationwide

Georgia already has a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, but backers of the constitutional ban argued that that law could be overturned, as has happened in other states.

More than 30 states have introduced legislation this year to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Utah, like Georgia, will put the issue on its November ballot. Same-sex marriage bans were approved by Massachusetts' and Wisconsin's legislatures but must be approved again next year before going to statewide votes in 2006.

Proposed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage also have been introduced in 23 other states, according to the Web site Stateline.org. Such measures have failed in 11 states, but the debate is ongoing in 12. And in Arkansas, Montana and Oregon, signatures are being gathered to place gay marriage amendments on November ballots through citizen initiatives.

Thornell said his organization faces a "difficult campaign" to persuade Georgia voters to oppose the gay marriage ban. But he said the group has taken a long-term view.

"Social movements can take decades," Thornell said. "This referendum is a chance for us to have a discussion about who we are and what our community is about."

Washington's same-sex marriage ban challenged in court

On behalf of 11 same-sex couples, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the state of Washington, challenging laws that deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. In simultaneous news conferences in Spokane and Seattle on Thursday, the advocacy group said Washington State's constitution does not allow discrimination based on gender. The couples either want to marry or want to have their marriages elsewhere recognized by the state, ACLU field director Genevieve Aguilar said. "We really hope this lawsuit will help allow families to gain full rights and to be able to give individuals the same kind of privileges that many straight couples already have," Aguilar said. The state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act violates the state and federal constitutions, which guarantee equal protection under the law, the ACLU contends. "Lawmakers cannot pass legislation that is contrary to the state constitution," said Matthew J. Segal, an attorney with the Seattle firm of Preston Gates Ellis, which is assisting the ACLU. Washington is among 39 states with laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The suit, filed in Thurston County superior court, seeks a ruling mandating that all marriage laws be applied without regard to gender, giving same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, Aguilar said. Attorney General Christine Gregoire said her office will defend the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. "The issue has emerged as one of the most emotional civil rights and controversial legal issues of the day," Gregoire said. "It has brought out strongly held and widely divergent views. It is only appropriate that this issue be addressed by our courts after a full and fair presentation of all legal arguments." Gregoire said only arguments consistent with constitutional protections of equal rights and nondiscrimination will be argued but that she would not object to the legislature hiring its own legal counsel to argue other positions.

Present at the Spokane press conference were Marge Ballack and Diane Lantz, a couple who have lived together for 25 years and were married in British Columbia in 2003. "We're asking to be legally married in this state," Ballack said, saying there are more than 1,100 tax and other benefits available exclusively to married couples. Another lawsuit was filed last month by six same-sex couples in King County, challenging that county's ban on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The state legislature has resisted attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, civil unions, or even gay civil rights. A bill to authorize same-sex civil unions died without a hearing in the Democrat-controlled house this year. A measure to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and financial transactions died in the senate.

CA Judge consolidates gay marriage suits

By Thomas Peele

CONTRA COSTA TIMES


SAN FRANCISCO - A Superior Court judge on Thursday consolidated two legal challenges to California's ban on gay marriage and ruled that the combined case can go forward while the state Supreme Court decides related issues.

Judge James L. Warren ruled that suits claiming that the ban violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution should be heard as one.

San Francisco and civil rights groups, including the National Center for Lesbian Rights, separately sued the state last month after the Supreme Court ordered the city to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

In their order, the Supreme Court justices had said they would welcome challenges to the constitutional questions while they decided the more narrow issue: Was Mayor Gavin Newsom within his rights to marry gay couples in defiance of a state law he believed unconstitutional? The high court is expected to hear arguments in May or June.

The decision Thursday means that the constitutional issues could be decided at the lower court level later this year. Numerous appeals are expected to follow any ruling.

"This is a green light," assistant city attorney Sherri Kaiser said after Warren's ruling. "The right thing to do was simply consolidate these cases."

Warren rejected a state request to delay the lower court cases until the Supreme Court rules on its cases. The state's motion was done improperly, he said, and he indicated he would not have granted it in any event.

Deputy Attorney General Rob Wilson did not comment.

In making his ruling Thursday, Warren in effect assigned the case to himself. When the city started marrying gay couples in February, Warren refused to stop it immediately.

A Florida law firm representing the Campaign for California Families later asked for another judge to hear the case. The case was eventually stayed pending the Supreme Court ruling.

The state had sought to delay any action on the cases while the California Judicial Council considers its request to coordinate all the same-sex marriage cases pending in various courts. Two other Superior Court cases in San Francisco and one in Los Angles have been stayed pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the Newsom case.

Next Thursday, Warren is expected to rule on the Prop. 22 Education and Legal Defense Fund's motion to join the cases he consolidated Thursday.

Lawyers for the fund have said they don't believe the state will make a strong enough argument for the constitutionality of the state ban on gay marriage that voters approved with Prop. 22 in 2000.

The city will oppose the group's motion. "It's up to the state to defend its laws," Kaiser said. "It's not the province of a right wing interest group."

Gay parents now equal under Tenn. law. Court ruling sets precedent to treat parents equally in custody, visitation disputes

Gay parents now equal under Tenn. law. Court ruling sets precedent to treat parents equally in custody, visitation disputes

By CHRISTOPHER SEELY
Friday, April 02, 2004


An appeals court in Tennessee last week reversed an earlier ruling that prohibited a gay father from “exposing” his son to his “gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle.”

The ruling means Joseph Hogue can now bring his 11-year-old son, Caden, over to the Nashville home where Hogue and his partner, Sean Peterson, reside without the threat of being put in jail.

Hogue, 38, said after the ruling he is “okay now,” but the experience was “hell.”

“It’s very heartbreaking to see what your child is being put through,” Hogue said. “Most of all I just wanted to spend time with my child and yet my ex-wife would rather him not have a father than for him to have a gay father.”

The reversal on March 24 by the Tennessee Court of Appeals sets legal precedent for the state, mandating heterosexual and gay parents be treated equally by judges in child custody or visitation disputes, according to Ken Choe, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who assisted Hogue’s case.

“We were very gratified that the court of appeals understood the offensiveness,” Choe said. “And we were quite surprised by the length to which it corrected its earlier decision.”

Attorneys for Hogue’s ex-wife, Cher Lynn Hogue, did not respond to interview requests by press time.

On Jan. 6, the appeals court upheld a temporary restraining order issued by a Williamson County trial court that said Hogue could be sent to jail for “taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle.”

The ACLU asked the three-judge appeals court panel to reconsider its decision. Upon reconsideration, the court withdrew the previous decision and replaced it with the requirement to treat gays equally. The court also removed the restraining order.

“Neither gay parents nor heterosexual parents have special rights,” the three-judge panel said in its opinion. “They are subject to the same laws, the same restrictions. Our courts should follow the same principles for placing restrictions on gay parents they use on any parents.”

In its reversal, the court also made clear that the “mere assertion that the parent is gay is not enough to prevent rights,” Choe said.
“ It really made explicit these two principles that we have been advocating for so long,” he said.

Winning custody and visitation rights has been an uphill battle since Hogue came out as gay in August 2001. In February 2002, he faced a temporary restraining order prohibiting him from being gay around his son.

“It puts you down so low,” said Hogue, a multiple Grammy Award-winning Christian music producer. “Literally you think it is you against the world.”

One of the lowest points came when Hogue’s then 9-year-old son. Caden, was called to testify against Hogue after his father told Caden about being gay, Hogue said.

“He already had the questions about me,” Hogue said. “Children are smarter than we give them credit.”

But the attorney for Hogue’s ex-wife claimed that by telling Caden he is gay, Hogue violated the temporary restraining order, and a judge in Williamson County sentenced Hogue to two days in jail.

After posting $2,500 bail, Hogue took his case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court ruled in January that Hogue did not violate the restraining order by telling his son about his sexual orientation. But Hogue still had to hide being gay from his son since the court did not strike down the original restraining order.

“I think that the court didn’t fully realize the offensiveness of the type of restriction that was imposed on Mr. Hogue,” Choe said. “When we pointed out that the restriction itself was offensive under the law, the court clearly recognized that it had not looked at the issue as holistically as it should have the first time around.”

What's Next? MA town clerk awaits same-sex marriage guidance from state

By Kit Kadlec / News Staff Writer
Friday, April 2, 2004

Ready or not, gay marriage is coming to area town halls on May 17 unless a request by Gov. Mitt Romney for a stay of the landmark Supreme Judicial Court ruling is granted.

On Monday, legislators voted in a Constitutional Convention 105-92 to ban gay marriage and define civil unions. The measure only goes into effect if it passes at the Constitutional Convention of the next Legislature and wins a majority of all state voters as a ballot question in 2006.

Until then, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts starting on May 17.

Romney said he is still looking for ways to prevent gay marriages from happening, but Attorney General Tom Reilly recently declined the governor's request to pursue a stay from the SJC. Reilly said the request did not have legal grounds.

One Dedham couple planning marriage in May is Theresa and Kendyl Schaefer, same-sex parents with two children.

The two women already had a wedding ceremony, but they still want to make it official next month.

"The word marriage is important," said Kendyl Schaefer.

Only through marriage can some couples become eligible for shared benefits such as health insurance.

Kendyl said she and Theresa are considering going to Dedham Town Hall to pick up their marriage documents next month.

"I never thought we were going to get married," she said.

If the couple does go to Town Hall, they will receive the same treatment as a man and woman seeking marriage documents, Assistant Town Clerk Linda Tobin said.

"We're going to handle it like we handle any other marriage," she said.

Tobin said her office has already received numerous inquiries about same-sex marriage, but she isn't expecting the long lines that were seen in San Francisco earlier this year.

And, unlike TV images from San Francisco, couples will not be able to get married on the spot, according to Walpole Town Clerk Ron Fucile.

"You can't walk into Town Hall and have a ceremony right there," he said.

Fucile said under present state marriage requirements, a couple must first come in and swear an oath to their marriage intention. They also must take a blood test administered by a doctor or blood donor center to check for syphilis, Fucile said.

After a three-day waiting period, a license can be awarded.

Before May 17, Fucile said he expects legislators to make some changes, though.

"The state hasn't given us anything yet," he said. "First, I need to know what laws they have in place that will support same-sex marriage."

Fucile said his office will also likely need new forms.

"It talks about bride and groom, but we're talking about something different," he said. "There are some things that will have to change."

Norwood Town Clerk Bob Thorton said he is still waiting for official word, like Fucile, before making any preparations.

"We really haven't received much information from the state," he said. "There's some indication that there could be some training/guidance, but it just hasn't come into fruition yet."

For example, Thorton said he was still unsure how to handle requests from non-Massachusetts residents.

"If they come to Massachusetts just to get married, and they come from a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, what do you do?" he asked. "We've got a month-and-a-half (to figure it out)."

He added he believes all towns in the state would likely be uniform in their actions and procedures.

"The way the laws are set up, you don't have 351 clerks from different towns making up their own rules," he said.

Kendyle said she doesn't expect the majority of gay couples to file into local town halls on May 17.

"I know plenty of gay couples that have no intention of getting married," she said. "There's a lot of gay couples that won't be doing this because they'll have to come out."

She said some gays used the previous ban as an excuse to avoid getting married, as well.

"You can't say, 'I'm going to wait to get married until it's legal because now it is,'" Schaefer said.

Some same-sex couples will find a financial benefit to getting married, though.

Leah O'Leary, who runs an adoption agency in Norwood geared to helping same-sex couples, said many couples she works with have one partner working while the other stays home with children. But unlike married couples, the partner staying home is not always eligible for health insurance.

"These actions haven't been against gay people, it's been against kids," O'Leary said of the gay marriage ban. "And kids have paid the price."

In one case O'Leary knew of, the parent staying at home became ill with cancer and had to buy costly health insurance.

Death Shows Danger of Silicone Injections

By C.G. Wallace
ALBANY, Ga. (AP) – The death of a transsexual who received injections of industrial-grade silicone illustrates the dangers of "pumping," a thriving underground practice in motel rooms or apartments among men living as women.

Authorities say 23-year-old Andre D. Jeter suffered convulsions and fell unconscious Dec. 10 after receiving injections in her hips and buttocks during a "pumping party" here. She died a month later.

On the Net:
Gender Education & Advocacy
La Gender:

Stephen Oneal Thomas, 31, was charged last week with murder and other offenses for allegedly administering the injections. Thomas' lawyer refused on Tuesday to comment.

One of Thomas' roommates, Nikkia Scott, and other drag queens have been getting illegal, back-room injections of silicone to give themselves some of the things nature denied them when they were born male – breasts, wider hips, more prominent cheekbones.

They know the risks are extreme, and still they do it.

"Anything you put in your body that don't belong there will hurt you in the long run," Scott said of her $6,000 worth of injections. "But believe me, it has been worth it. It has been worth it."

Scott and three others were also arrested in the case and charged with conspiracy and practicing medicine without a license. They were accused, among other things, of helping Thomas by recruiting patients at drag-queen beauty pageants.

The victim was a man living as a woman, as are all four defendants.

While medical-grade silicone is implanted under the skin in sealed sacs to keep it from leaking, pumping involves injecting silicone straight into the body.

And the silicone used is the stuff sold in hardware stores as a sealant. It is not sterile and can cause infections, particularly in the lungs.

The silicone is often mixed with paraffin, oil, even peanut butter, said Dallas Denny of the transgender support group Gender Education & Advocacy. In Jeter's case, it was probably mixed with baby oil, based on how it smelled to others who received the injections, said James Paulk, an investigator for the district attorney.

There was so much silicone in Jeter's body that when incisions were made during the autopsy, a clear, brownish liquid flowed out, Paulk said.

The scope of the phenomenon is unclear. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and transgender groups said they do not keep track of the problem. But Paulk said a "slew" of people have been injured, including three or four in Montgomery, Ala., six or seven in Columbus, Ga., and a few in Jacksonville, Fla.

"The transgender society is a very tight-knit society. They don't like to give each other up because if you do, you get barred from the pageants," Paulk said. "If they're not hurting and they're not experiencing medical problems, they aren't calling me."

A day after his arrest, a stubble-faced Scott, wearing large hoop earrings, was back to gluing weaves to heads at a beauty parlor in Albany, a town 150 miles south of Atlanta. His roommate Jazz, also arrested in the case, was at home, wearing pajamas and pink flowered flip-flops.

Jazz and Scott compete in drag shows during "black society" nights at a bar called Queens in Albany. They dress in gowns and rhinestones and perform songs for tips.

They both strongly denied any involvement in giving silicone injections and said they did not know their roommate Thomas was "pumping."

Scott, identified as Freddie Clyde in court documents, said her silicone injections have not caused any serious health problems. But Jazz, whose legal name is Mark Edwards, said she has had three procedures – face, bust and lower body – that cost her about $3,300, and has suffered severe side effects.

Last year, she said, she started coughing heavily and discovered that the silicone had gotten into her lungs, giving her chemical pneumonia. She spent two months in the hospital and several more months on bed rest, and her weight dropped from 270 to 150.

She also lifted up her T-shirt to show the scar under one of her breasts where doctors went in to remove a hardened clump of silicone.

As for Jeter, Jazz said, she had taken the injections too far. Jeter had complained that her head itched and that her hair had stopped growing, according to Jazz. "Jeter was making herself look like a monster," Jazz said.

Despite her own health problems, Jazz said she has nothing against the woman who gave her the injections.

"I don't want to prosecute her, I want to thank her," she said. "I'm the one who wanted the work. She did nothing wrong but what I wanted."

First same-sex marriage in Quebec

Longtime partners Michael Hendricks and Rene Leboeuf made history when they tied the knot in Montreal on Thursday.

Michael Hendricks, left, and Rene Leboeuf walk out of a Montreal courtroom (CP PHOTO)


Dozens of gay activists, friends and journalists watched the tuxedo-clad couple walk down the aisle at the Montreal courthouse, nearly six years after Hendricks launched a legal battle for the right to marry.

Last month, the Quebec Court of Appeal told him he had that right.

Quebec is the third province, after Ontario and British Columbia, to declare same-sex marriages legal.

Administration Targets Federal Employees, Removes Protections for Sexual Orientation

Recently, one of Scott Bloch's first acts as newly appointed Special Counsel to the White House was to instill fear in 'homosexual' employees of the federal government. In an increasingly common curtailment of individual rights, the Bush Administration has removed decades-long protections from employment discrimination against those who serve our nation.

Bloch's expressed rationale for removing protections for gays and lesbians is that "sexual orientation isn't protected from discrimination or hate crimes by current civil rights laws." Presumably, crossdressers, transsexuals and intersex government employees are also at risk since gender-identity and expression have never been explicitly covered.

Not satisfied with continuing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discrimination in the nation's armed forces, Mr. Bush and his Special Counsel have decided that GLBT federal civilian employees have no recourse if fired simply for their sexual orientation.

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) website includes 12 practices prohibited in accordance with the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978. Among these prohibitions is discrimination based on personal conduct that is not adverse to the on-the-job performance of an employee, applicant, or others. The OSC and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) long interpreted this to include sexual orientation.

In a statement issued March 31, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement blasting Bloch. "The actions of Special Counsel Scott Bloch are not only needlessly divisive, they are simply wrong as a matter of law." She added, "Mr. Bloch's willingness to tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is contrary to federal law, which has long been held by the Office of Special Counsel during Administrations of both political parties."

In 1998, President Clinton codified this interpretation by amending Executive Order 11478 - Section 1 to state in part, "It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency." [Emphasis added.]

Not so, says the new Special Counsel, former Deputy Director of the Justice Department's Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives. In a recent interview with the Federal Times, a publication for federal managers, Bloch indicated that one's conduct as a homosexual is protected but that one's sexual orientation itself is not.

"People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don't think they are," Bloch told the Times. In interpreting the CSRA, "Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class ... and one is behavior," he explained.

"In other words, Men having Sex with Men (MSM) cannot be discriminated against," commented Vanessa Edwards Foster, chair of the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC), "but identifying as gay will get you fired. How odd."

Bloch also inferred in the article that the recent interpretation could be up for further review at a later time.

"This is more bizarre than the military's discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy against gays and transgenders," said Robyn Walters, Secretary of the. "Apparently gays and lesbian federal employees can't be fired for participating in homosexual acts or gay rights meetings, but they can be fired just for being homosexual.

"Such ludicrous decisions result when 'compassionate conservatism' mixes with the influence of radical Christian political groups and their campaign contributions," added Walters

The recent official move by the OSC, as well as a deterioration of workplace decorum has many transsexual employees, both pre-transition and especially post-transitioned, on edge. According to a transgendered law enforcement officer who wished to remain unnamed, "they are afraid that this President is going to set the stage for witch hunts and they feel ripe for targeting, especially the Federal [employees]."

There are transsexual employees who have transitioned or would like to transition on their jobs in numerous federal agencies, including the FBI and the Dept. of Justice. The source added, "We have several feds" in a loosely-based group of transgenders in law enforcement, "and they all express concern over this."

This newest blow to GLBT human rights reinforces NTAC resolve to press the GLBT community and federal, state and local legislators to enact transgender-inclusive employment nondiscrimination, both in government employment and federally as well.

"It is unacceptable to use an ideological or political agenda to subvert years of settled interpretation of federal personnel policies and statutes," Rep. Pelosi stated on the OSC change. "Once again, this Administration has sought to divide the American people for political purposes."

-----

Founded in 1999, NTAC - the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition - is a §501(c)(4) civil rights organization working to establish and maintain the right of all transgendered, intersexed, and gender-variant people to live and work without fear of violence or discrimination

Critics of gay unions can look at the stats

The Times-Picayune, April 1, 2004
3800 Howard Ave., New Orleans, LA, 70140
(Fax: 504-826-3369 ) (E-Mail: jdonley@nola.com )
( http://www.nolalive.com/t-p )


By Pam Karlan

Fifty years ago, the great French-born historian Jacques Barzun wrote that "whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball." Recently, New Orleans native Michael Lewis revealed, in his best-seller "Moneyball," that Americans, including most of the people who oversee the game, don't actually understand baseball very well. Perhaps if we understood baseball better, we could better sort through some of the most vexing problems in contemporary American life, like the question of same-sex marriage.

The story of "Moneyball" is how Billy Beane made the Oakland A's one of the most successful teams in baseball using a distinctive approach to judging talent. Tradition has blinded general managers and scouts to excellence. Baseball insiders mistakenly rate players based on how they look, rather than how they perform. They resist looking at hard data because they just "know" what is right. Beane's recognition that the game's shibboleths should be rethought propelled his small-market, small-budget team to the front ranks of the sport. Followers who became general managers in Toronto and Boston have begun to replicate his success.

Now think about same-sex marriage. The Bay Area, Canada and Massachusetts are not only outposts of new thinking about baseball; they're outposts of new thinking about same-sex marriage as well. The two most widespread arguments against same-sex marriage rest on tradition – marriage has always meant a relationship between one man and one woman – and raising children – same-sex couples either aren't raising children or can't do it as well as opposite-sex couples.

Tradition without reflection is exactly what "Moneyball" teaches us we should rethink. And during the spring that marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's momentous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, it's worth remembering that it was the tradition of all-white organized baseball that denied heroes like Josh Gibson and Buck Leonard and Cool Papa Bell their right to bring their talents to the major leagues.

Today, we venerate Jackie Robinson, who shattered the traditional color line. Who remembers, let alone has a kind word for, Ben Chapman, the racist manager of the Phillies who tormented Robinson with bigoted shouts from the dugout?

But even when tradition barred them from major-league teams, black Americans played a spirited, excellent brand of baseball. So, too, with gay couples. Even when denied the tangible rights, the social approval and the reinforcement during rocky times that formal marriages provide, millions of same-sex couples have spent their lives together, forming bonds every bit as strong and valuable to themselves, their families and their communities as those formed by their straight relatives and neighbors.

The juxtaposition of elderly couples who have been together for 50 years lining up for marriage licenses in San Francisco with Britney Spears changing her marital status the way some people change their contact lenses should be a lesson not to judge people's relationships by appearances.

And what about the issue of children? Here, the "Moneyball" lesson about hard data versus stereotypes is worth remembering. All the evidence shows that two-parent, stable households are best for children. But that's just as true of loving, two-parent gay or lesbian households. The most reliable long-term studies indicate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents do as well as their counterparts raised in straight households when it comes to school and employment, report similar levels of subjective well-being, and have an equal ability as adults to built their own marriages and partnerships.

As my Stanford colleague Michael Wald has pointed out, many gay people are highly committed parents who went to great lengths through adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy to have a child. Because these children were all wanted – in a nation in which all too many children are not – it is no surprise that their life prospects are good.

If we judge by hard data, rather than the unexamined beliefs of oldtimers and insiders, same-sex marriages are likely to benefit rather than harm children, as well as the adults who enter into them.

Just as baseball is played better when we respect the diverse talents that contribute to the game and go beyond stereotypes about who can play well, so too, America is made stronger if we respect the many kinds of families that make up our nation.

• Pamela Karlan is the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford Law School and the 2004 Phelps Lecturer at Tulane Law School. Professor Karlan will speak Friday at 11 a.m. in Room 257 of the Law School. The lecture is free and open to the public. Her topic is "No More Tiers: Contemporary Issues in Equal Protection."

Out Of The Closet, Into The Courtroom: What happens when a gay cop and a gay marine end up in a dispute that the legal system is ill-equipped to hand

California Lawyer, April 2004
Out Of The Closet, Into The Courtroom
What happens when a gay cop and a gay marine end up in a dispute that the legal system is ill-equipped to handle?

By Peter Blumberg

Rookie attorney Crane Stephen Landis walked into Los Angeles Superior Court in May 2002 short on experience but long on confidence. It was his first civil trial. Then again, all he wanted from the judge was a standard restraining order to protect his friend, a young marine reservist, from being harassed by an ex-lover, a veteran police officer. Landis figured he'd be in and out of the downtown courthouse within a couple of hours.
But this was no ordinary domestic dispute, nor did it turn out to be the type of case for which the civil justice system offers a ready resolution. Landis didn't take into account that because of his client's occupation, and because of his homosexuality, the 24-year-old marine stood to lose as much as he might win by taking the matter to court. Nor did getting forced out of the closet bode well for the 38-year-old cop, who suddenly found himself in need of a lawyer to save his career at the Los Angeles Police Department. Before Landis knew what was happening, he became embroiled in a case that spanned years, involved numerous court appearances, and touched on legal issues that ranged from contempt to military law to basic constitutional freedoms. As everyone in this battle would discover, the much-ballyhooed gay-rights movement has had a limited impact on the justice system: Without a clearly defined legal recourse, there is no quick fix for gays and lesbians harmed by being outed. And whether or not litigators can find a legal remedy by turning to existing theories of liability remains to be seen.
The marines didn't ask, and Mario Guerrero didn't tell. In fact, he kept his homosexuality a secret from them for six years while training one weekend each month and for two weeks every summer with a marine reserve unit in Los Alamitos. To the young troops in Company 323, the well-spoken, earnest student from the eastern outskirts of Los Angeles was just one of the guys – a fellow infantry soldier in a unit that saw combat in Iraq last spring. It was a tour of duty that would have made his immigrant parents proud.
In the fall of 2001, when terrorists attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, Guerrero had a lot on his mind. He had just started his senior year of college at the University of La Verne outside Los Angeles. There was the prospect of being called to active duty in Afghanistan. And on top of that, Guerrero was deeply distressed over a string of hostile email messages he had received from two unfamiliar Yahoo accounts. The messages, which included attached nude photographs and video clips of him, threatened that similar embarrassing messages could be sent to his friends. Guerrero immediately suspected his ex-lover, Robert Wayne Duncan, with whom he'd had a bad breakup. Later that year one of Guerrero's fraternity brothers received a CD that depicted Guerrero having sex with another man whose image had been blocked out. At around the same time, an envelope containing a copy of the same CD showed up at Guerrero's parents' house. The package was addressed to Guerrero's marine station in Los Alamitos, but because it was incompletely addressed, it was instead delivered to the return address provided.
Frightened, Guerrero temporarily moved out of his campus dormitory and stayed with a friend. He also started looking into his legal options. When he had not yet found a lawyer by January 2002, Guerrero wrote a letter to Duncan's supervising commander at the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). "I hope this letter serves to repel further harassment from Robert Wayne Duncan before this situation reaches another level," Guerrero wrote. Along with the letter, Guerrero included copies of the emails that he attributed to Duncan.
By the time Guerrero's letter was routed to Internal Affairs, Duncan had proudly worn his LAPD badge for 18 years and was less than two years away from being eligible to retire with a pension. Early in his career he was awarded a Medal of Valor for "conspicuous bravery" after he intervened in a barroom robbery while off duty and was wounded in a gun battle. Years later he won a merit award for his work on a Hollywood vice unit, was promoted to sergeant, and finally landed an administrative position assisting an upper-management commander.
A day after Guerrero contacted the LAPD, two Internal Affairs investigators interviewed him for more than an hour. Guerrero provided them with details of the alleged harassment as well as a copy of the embarrassing video that had been circulating. He also gave them his account of an incident that had occurred at Duncan's condominium about eight months earlier. He says the investigators encouraged him to report it to the Whittier Police Department as an attempted rape, which he subsequently did.
Later that winter, Guerrero finally found a lawyer to help him obtain a restraining order – Crane Stephen Landis, whom he'd met through a mutual friend some time earlier. By the time Landis signed on, his fairly new position at a small criminal defense firm had all but taken over his life, leaving him stressed out and strapped for time. His boss wasn't excited about him moonlighting for Guerrero, and the firm certainly wasn't giving him any resources or mentoring to become a civil harassment specialist. Landis made do without backup and economized wherever he could. At trial in Judge John P. Shook's courtroom in May 2002 he presented as an expert a friend of Guerrero's who co-owned two technology companies and agreed to help without a fee. The friend testified that based on electronic data he was able to retrieve from the threatening emails, the messages most likely came from Duncan's home computer.
Duncan took the stand and denied ever making a sex tape with Guerrero or engaging in any of the harassment that Guerrero had alleged, including the attempted rape, which the Whittier police never referred to the district attorney. In a sworn declaration, Duncan suggested that Guerrero may have fabricated his own outing because he was afraid of being sent to war in Afghanistan and wanted out of the marines. Nonetheless, the judge granted the restraining order, which prohibited Duncan from contacting Guerrero or visiting his home or the marine station at Camp Pendleton.
"We were victorious," Landis says. "It was baptism by fire for both of us."
But Guerrero's relief didn't last long. Two weeks later the master sergeant in charge of his marine unit received a letter from Cynthia Caine, an old friend of Duncan's. "There has been tremendous damage done by Mario Guerrero to Sgt. Duncan professionally, emotionally and personally," Caine wrote. "It is inconceivable to me that a Marine would engage himself in such immature and hateful behavior, especially during a time when Americans should be proud of themselves and their brothers."
Caine also introduced Duncan to a lawyer friend of hers – Calabasas-based attorney Jon D. Cantor, who mainly practiced business and entertainment law but had racked up substantial litigation experience during more than 20 years of practice. Like Landis, Cantor already had plenty on his plate, but he agreed to take on a client who couldn't afford his fees because he saw Duncan as a victim who had been railroaded with false accusations. Cantor immediately went to work drafting a brief to persuade the Second District Court of Appeal to vacate the restraining order.
Suddenly Landis, who had switched jobs and was shouldering the burden of a new associate at a large corporate law firm, found himself working on his first appellate brief fast on the heels of his first solo court victory.
"We worked with no resources," Landis recalls. "We did our research on FindLaw because that's all we had. We had no secretarial support or access to Lexis. Everything we did was done without the aid of a law firm behind us."
In his appeal, Cantor argued that the restraining order wasn't supported by sufficient proof that Duncan had actually written the threatening emails. He also contended the order infringed on Duncan's First Amendment right to free speech. In May 2003 the Second District rejected the appeal, and the California Supreme Court subsequently refused to review it.
But for Duncan and Cantor a larger problem loomed. The LAPD had been preparing to bring disciplinary charges based on Duncan's off-duty conduct with Guerrero. And though Duncan learned that the Internal Affairs investigators had conducted surveillance on him, they had not asked him for an account of what happened.
When earlier settlement talks with Guerrero had broken down, Cantor advised Duncan that he had nothing to lose by writing his own letter to the marines, requesting an investigation into Guerrero's conduct. So Duncan gathered documents from his court battle with Guerrero and mailed them off. "While it is true that Mr. Guerrero and I were involved in a homosexual relationship, Mr. Guerrero has exploited that relationship by making it publicly known, via a false crime report and bringing our personal relationship out before the courts, my employer and my community," Duncan wrote.
Within days the military began an investigation into Guerrero's homosexuality. Guerrero was called in by his commanding officer and told that discharge proceedings had begun based on the evidence presented – his own admission in court documents that he had a boyfriend. He could contest the discharge, but he would have to deny being gay in order to do so. "I'm not ashamed," Guerrero says, "so there wouldn't be much I could do in terms of a challenge."
Instead, Guerrero turned again to Landis to see if the civil court would hold Duncan responsible.
For his part, Landis had already devoted more time and money to Guerrero's cause than he could afford. He grew impatient and increasingly overwhelmed. But Landis also felt partially responsible for the unfortunate conclusion to Guerrero's military career. "It was my fault for not foreseeing Robert's intent to contact the marines," Landis admits. "I should have insisted that the restraining order prevent Robert from contacting the marines. After all, I was the attorney of record." Landis went back to court three times to ask the judge to hold Duncan in contempt for violating the restraining order. The first two motions were improperly served on Duncan, the result of Landis's cost-cutting decision to use an amateur process server. Finally, in August 2003, almost a year after Duncan contacted the Marine Corps, Guerrero got his day in court. "The delays for the contempt hearing were also mine," Landis says. "I was transitioning into a new job at a new firm. Again, this originally was only meant to be a mere restraining order. It was never meant to take on a life of its own."
Landis minced no words condemning Duncan's hostile outing of Guerrero's homosexuality. "Is it the intention of the Defendant to sully the purpose of the Constitution's First Amendment by implying that 'outing' an ex-boyfriend to the U.S. Marines falls under its scope?" he wrote. Even if Duncan did have such a right, surely the government had a more compelling interest in protecting Guerrero from harassment, Landis argued in court papers.
"My client's purpose in contacting the Marine Corps was not to out Guerrero but to get someone to investigate that he was committing perjury on the witness stand to get an injunction against my client," Cantor says. Nor did Duncan's actions violate the stay-away provisions of the restraining order, Cantor contended, because they said nothing about general communication with the Marines Corps. In the end, Shook ruled in Duncan's favor, finding that the restraining order did indeed specify only that Duncan stay away from Guerrero. The judge declined to reach the constitutional issue, explaining that he was precluded from doing so because the appellate court had already ruled that the restraining order was not a restraint on speech.
Shook's refusal to find Duncan in contempt ended Guerrero's legal fight against Duncan – at least for a while – but it was only the beginning of Duncan's court battles. Three days after the hearing concluded in his favor, Duncan filed a civil suit against the LAPD and five police department officials, including Deputy Assistant Chief James McDonnell and Deputy Chief James McMurray, claiming that Internal Affairs had improperly investigated his "personal lifestyle" and then compromised his career by outing him through LAPD's rumor mill. The investigation itself resulted in Duncan being charged with a completely unrelated offense: He was suspended for five days because his time cards didn't reflect that he'd left work early and failed to show up a few times. But the manner in which the department had conducted the investigation made Duncan suspect his bosses wanted him gone for good.
"Not only did they tell everyone I'm gay, they said I did nasty, mean things, that I'm a rapist," Duncan says. "I didn't want to go back to work and have people call me faggot and other names. Harassment, physical threats, damage to your car – these are all things that have happened to people I know who are gay."
As a result, Duncan took a medical leave of absence that he attributed to stress and has not gone back to back to work since August 2002. "I removed myself from an environment that I knew would become even more hostile," he explains.
Months later, during a meeting with McMurray to discuss what it would take to return to work, Duncan says the deputy chief informed him that his desk job had been eliminated but that he should "suck it up and come back to patrol."
LAPD officials won't discuss pending litigation. In court papers, the department has denied Duncan's charges that he was subject to discrimination and retaliation. But this isn't the first time the LAPD has faced accusations of hostility toward gay officers. In 1988 Mitchell Grobeson made history as the first police officer in the nation to file a suit against a law enforcement agency alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. The city settled that suit in 1993 by agreeing to pay Grobeson $770,000 and promising to improve its recruitment, hiring, and training of officers. Grobeson returned to the force but ended up filing a harassment lawsuit three years later. In that case, he complained that he was disciplined for wearing his uniform without permission in a gay-pride parade and for appearing in a magazine advertisement aimed at recruiting homosexuals to the LAPD. Grobeson has since retired, but the retaliation claim in his 1996 suit eluded settlement and remains in pretrial discovery.
In 1997 the city of Los Angeles also reportedly settled the sexual orientation discrimination claims of two other officers, one gay and one lesbian, for a total of nearly $1.2 million. Plaintiff Lance LaPay had alleged that he was pushed against the wall by officers who then stuck the butt end of a rifle in his groin. Co-plaintiff Natasha Benavides charged that she was harassed in retaliation for blowing the whistle on LaPay's mistreatment. In 1998 the city agreed to pay $662,000 to lesbian officer Virginia Acevedo, who complained of racist and sexist comments and physical abuse, as well as an incident where a balloon shaped like male genitalia was shoved in her face at a restaurant. Then there's Richard Tamez, who claimed that he'd been mistaken for a homosexual and harassed. Among other alleged incidents, Tamez said he was sitting at his desk eating a banana when another officer sneaked up behind him and pushed his head forward in a simulated oral-sex act.
Bert Voorhees of Pasadena's Traber & Voorhees, Grobeson's attorney throughout his 15-year epic battle, says the LAPD has made a fair amount of progress since the "antigay hate speech from the top" in the 1980s and deserves credit for its "outwardly open commitment to diversity." One mark of that progress is that in 2002 the highest-ranking openly gay member of the department, Deputy Chief David Kalish, emerged as a leading contender for the top job last year that ultimately went to William Bratton.
"But that doesn't mean homophobia has been eradicated," Voorhees says. "Nor does it mean that you have a real commitment within middle and upper-middle management to make it a fair game for gays and lesbians within the department."
Told of the latest suit, Voorhees says Duncan's reluctance to return to the force after being pushed out of the closet is understandable. ''There? No doubt you are more of a target when you're on patrol and there are issues of who will partner with you and how it will go," he says.
"The LAPD is a paramilitary organization, and the fact that Duncan has now been outed has already changed his career," Cantor says. "He will now be judged not by how he works but by who he is. There will be people who will not want to work with him or be around him, and that will hinder his ability to be promoted."
Being afraid of antigay bias, however, is not the same as actually experiencing it. Duncan's decision to take a leave of absence to avoid the sort of harassment his predecessors have alleged could make it more difficult for him to fend off efforts by the LAPD to dismiss his case. Nonetheless, Cantor believes he can prove not only that the department strayed from its own policies in its response to Guerrero's initial harassment complaint but that Internal Affairs handled Duncan differently than it would treat a garden-variety case of an accused heterosexual wife beater. "In any lawsuit, it's a matter of collecting pebbles and putting them on the scales of Justice," he says. Discovery is already under way, and a trial is scheduled for September 13.
For Guerrero things were a lot simpler. In October 2002 he was officially put on notice that he was under investigation for homosexual conduct, which the Marine Corps defines as "homosexual acts, a statement by a member that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or homosexual marriage or attempted homosexual marriage."
He remained on active duty for a few months, working at a desk job while his unit prepared for battle against Saddam Hussein's army. Then, in May 2003, he graduated from college with a bachelor's degree in Spanish and a minor in computer information systems and, despite a grim economy, landed a job at a national Latino advocacy organization based in Los Angeles. As of February 2004 he was still awaiting final word on his dismissal from the military.
According to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, based in Washington, D.C., the military – one of the nation's largest employers – discharges three to four people a day for suspected homosexuality – a sharp increase over the number of such discharges prior to the enactment of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Sometimes a soldier or sailor volunteers the incriminating information; other times, the confession is really a plea for help to stop harassment within the ranks, which can be brutal. And then there are those, like Guerrero, who are outed by civilians who know their secret and have a grudge to bear.
Most don't ask, don't tell discharges are honorable, according to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Dishonorable discharges are issued only when other serious military violations are sustained. If he's given an honorable discharge, Guerrero says he'll just try to put that chapter of his life behind him. If Guerrero's dismissal is dishonorable, however, he not only will have a black mark on his resume but he may also be barred from collecting veteran's benefits at retirement age. In that case he says he may have to hire a lawyer to appeal through the military justice system.
Or Guerrero could take a more aggressive approach and join the handful of other soldiers who have recently challenged the constitutionality of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy under Lawrence v. Texas (538 US. 918(2003)), last summer's U.S. Supreme Court blockbuster that overturned state anti-sodomy laws on privacy grounds. Constitutional law experts say Lawrence would not trump military law because courts traditionally defer broadly to the armed forces, whose generals claim that special needs justify keeping homosexuals out of combat. But the issue is already provoking controversy on the always unpredictable Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently considered the long-running case of a psychiatrist who was ordered to reimburse the air force for more than $71,000 in medical education expenses after disclosing in 1997 that he is gay. In September the case was sent back to trial court, and though the panel declined to decide the Lawrence issue, two of the three sitting judges encouraged plaintiff John Hensala to test the constitutionality of don't ask, don't tell. In February Hensala filed an amended complaint, expanding his suit to include a substantive due process challenge to the recoupment practice, which is based on the military's claim that service members discharged because of homosexual conduct voluntarily failed to complete their service obligation. That case is set for trial in November.
Guerrero says he is also considering retaining Landis, who's now at the law firm of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, to sue Duncan for the damage he suffered as a result of being outed to the marines. Of course, outing itself is not a tort, but people have on occasion attempted to seek legal redress through the civil courts by alleging that the act of outing someone can be actionable under other legal theories.
Only one such case has ever been advanced in California, according to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the plaintiff in that case was unsuccessful. In 1975 ex-marine Oliver Sipple, who became an instant celebrity when he foiled an assassination attempt on President Gerald R. Ford by grabbing the arm of the shooter just as she was about to fire, sued the San Francisco Chronicle for allegedly invading his privacy by outing him to the public in an article about his heroic actions. The court ruled that Sipple could not sustain an invasion of privacy claim because he was already out to friends and social contacts before the newspaper article ran. (Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1984).)
Ironically, it's well established in California that imputing homosexuality to a person can be injurious. But because such injury has been recognized solely through the tort of defamation, only those falsely accused of being gay can obtain a remedy, even though gay people forced out of the closet can and often do suffer similar harm.
Recently, though, a federal judge in Oregon found that the hostile outing of a lesbian guest-lodge owner merited a $257,000 award because it caused her to fear for her safety and the future of her business in the small town where she lived. In that case the plaintiff alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation, and invasion of privacy (Simpson v. Burrows, 90 F: Supp. 2d 1108 (2000).)
For Guerrero, advancing such a case may not be easy. By the time Duncan contacted the marines, Guerrero's supervisor had already received Cynthia Caine's letter, which discussed his homosexuality. And Guerrero still lacks direct evidence that it was Duncan who sent the threatening emails or mailed the sex video. In fact, according to Cantor, LAPD's Internal Affairs investigators dusted the envelope that contained the video received by Guerrero's parents, looking for Duncan's finger-prints. They didn't find any.

GA Gay marriage ban amendment passes, Georgia voters to decide issue in November

By JIM THARPE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/01/04

Conservatives celebrated and subdued gay rights supporters vowed to continue fighting Wednesday night after the Georgia Legislature gave final approval to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
The proposal, one of the most divisive issues to confront Georgia lawmakers in years, now moves to the state's voters, who must approve it in a Nov. 2 referendum before it can become part of the state constitution.

After two hours of intense debate, the Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives narrowly endorsed the referendum, which passed the Republican-run Senate early in the legislative session.

"I feel very gratified that the House gave the people the right to have a voice," said Sadie Fields, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, a key supporter of the proposed ban. "They did the right thing. It's the fair thing to do."

But gay rights advocates said the passage of Senate Resolution 595 just clears the way to make "discrimination" part of the Georgia Constitution. Several opponents of the proposed ban hugged one another and wiped away tears outside the House chamber as they vowed to continue their battle at the ballot box.

"I think we fought the good fight," said state Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates), the state's only openly gay lawmaker. "The conservatives won, but gay people are not going away."

The House voted 122-52 for the gay marriage ban as the giant tote boards over the chamber lit up at 6:54 p.m. The final tally was just two votes more than the two-thirds majority needed in the 180-member House for passage of a proposed constitutional amendment.

The same proposal failed by just three votes in its first House appearance in late February, a decision that buoyed the hopes of gay rights supporters and sent conservatives scrambling. But four members of the 39-member House Legislative Black Caucus who did not vote Feb. 26 supported the ban Wednesday, ensuring its passage.

Gay rights advocates will begin an immediate campaign to defeat the proposal in November, said Allen Thornell, director of Georgia Equality, the state's largest gay rights group, which like the Christian Coalition had lobbied daily on the legislation. Metro Atlanta is believed to have the third-largest number of gay residents in the nation, and many of them made their first trip to the Capitol this year to lobby against the ban.

"Today was a step backwards," said state Rep. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta), the Democratic whip in the House and a staunch opponent of the amendment. "But we'll be back. We will continue to fight this battle. The forces of tolerance and inclusion and fair-mindedness ultimately are the forces that will move this state forward. We will not take this setback standing still."

Wednesday's vote followed three months of controversy that roiled the Capitol and strained traditional political alliances within the Democratic Party. The Georgia debate took place amid a growing national conversation about gay marriage. More than two dozen state legislatures are considering some form of gay marriage ban this year. Earlier this week, Massachusetts approved a same-sex marriage ban but, unlike Georgia, permitted gay civil unions.

Here, both sides ran well-polished lobbying blitzes that jammed lawmakers' telephone lines, fax machines and e-mail in-boxes. On March 1, several thousand people on both sides of the issue took part in a raucous Capitol rally — one of the largest in years — that attracted people from across the state.

Gay rights advocates contend that the ban would dangerously broaden existing Georgia law, which already prohibits same-sex marriage. The constitutional amendment not only would bar same-sex marriage in Georgia but would prohibit the state from recognizing any same-sex "union" approved in another state.

Opponents of the amendment argued that its broad language could affect domestic partnership benefits offered by some Georgia companies. Supporters said it would have no impact on the policies of private companies.

Some opponents also accused Republicans of using the proposed ban as a ploy to increase conservative voter turnout in November. Conservatives countered that they are just trying to ward off attacks on their core value system and to preserve marriage as a sacred bond that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. They argued that a constitutional ban is necessary because "activist judges" have overturned statutory gay marriage bans in other states.

"We cannot let judges in Boston, or officials in San Francisco, define marriage for the people of Georgia," declared Rep. Bill Hembree (R-Douglasville). Hembree, a leading House spokesman for the amendment, said the ban will build a "wall of defense around the institution of marriage" and is needed to "protect the family structure that has existed for 6,000 years."

That argument apparently helped win over Black Caucus members Randal Mangham (D-Decatur), Sharon Beasley-Teague (D-Red Oak), Carl Von Epps (D-LaGrange) and LaNett Stanley-Turner (D-Atlanta). Those legislators did not vote Feb. 26 but supported the ban in Wednesday's vote.

"We shouldn't have to explain to 6-, 7- and 8-year-olds why men are kissing each other," said Mangham, whose vote was critical in Wednesday's passage. "I don't like having to explain that to my kids. I will continue to support their [homosexuals'] right to do what they do, but they will not have the sanctity of marriage."

Staff writers Ernie Suggs and Patti Ghezzi contributed to this article.

Calif. school system risks millions over transgender-protection law

A school district in conservative Orange County is risking the loss of millions in state aid for refusing to update its anti-discrimination policy to protect transgender students.

Westminster school board trustee Judy Ahrens said the state Education Department policy promotes homosexuality, and she will not give in to what she called blackmail. "I'm calling their bluff," she said.

Westminster is the only one of California's 1,425 school districts to refuse to endorse a 1999 state law that gives boys who consider themselves girls and girls who regard themselves as boys the right to pursue discrimination complaints.

Two other trustees voted with Ahrens on the five-member school board.

"I'm really sad that the moral compass isn't out there," she said. "I'm really disappointed that economics is trying to outweigh morality and protecting our kids in this district."

The district, about 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles, serves 10,000 elementary and middle school students. More than $40 million of its $68 million budget comes from state and federal sources.

That money could be cut off if the district is not in compliance with state law by April 12. A final decision will not be made until after the deadline, said Michael Hersher, a lawyer for the state Education Department.

There have already been repercussions: Bank of America has withheld approval of a $16 million line of credit for school improvements because the district's funding is at risk, said district spokeswoman Trish Montgomery.

The board voted against the policy earlier this year, and refused to reconsider in February. It will meet on Thursday to take up the matter again.

The issue has upset some residents of Orange County, where conservative school boards have in recent years moved to ban a high school's gay-straight alliance club and tried to sue Mexico to recoup the cost of educating immigrant children.

Some parents have started gathering signatures in a recall campaign against the three members blocking the policy change.

"People are shocked," said Lisa Mathews, who has two children in a Westminster elementary school. "It's like they seem to feel that they are above the law, like their position on the school board affords them immunity from state laws."

Transgender students are often subject to teasing and harassment in elementary schools, which can escalate into violence when they grow older, said Roslyn Manley, a member of the county Human Relations Commission's Transgender Task Force.

She noted the case of Eddie "Gwen" Araujo, a San Francisco Bay-area teenager who prosecutors say was killed in 2002 when others found out Araujo was biologically male.

Jim Reed, the Westminster school board president, said Ahrens and the other dissenters should try to change the law rather than defy it.

"To be in violation of the law, to be risking so much to our students, our teachers, our administration, our district as a whole, for this particular stance in this arena, I feel that it's foolhardy to do that," he said.

©2004 Associated Press

Lockyer wants stay on gay marriage suits

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked Tuesday that three lawsuits seeking to overturn state laws banning same-sex marriages be put on hold until the California Supreme Court decides whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority in allowing the weddings.

Lockyer asked the state Judicial Council, the court's policymaking body, to coordinate the three lawsuits -- one filed by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and the other two by eight same-sex couples -- with two suits filed by groups opposing gay marriage who are seeking to invalidate the 4,037 weddings that took place at San Francisco City Hall.

Lockyer also asked that any action in the suits be stayed until the council rules on his request. He said that the move would avoid confusion and inconsistent results.

"It's a delay tactic,'' said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. He said it made no sense to combine the three suits with the two brought by the conservative groups because they involve different issues.

The California Supreme Court issued a stay on the two legal actions brought by the forces opposing same-sex marriage pending a decision on whether Newsom exceeded his authority Feb. 12 in ordering the county clerk to issue same-sex-same marriage licenses.


©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

NM Supreme Court extends restraining order in same-sex marriage license case

(Albuquerque-AP) -- The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday extended an order halting a county clerk’s imminent plans to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Without elaborating, the court unanimously ruled the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until a state district court could rule on the merits of the case.

Attorney General Patricia Madrid had sought a stay halting Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap’s plan to issue gay and lesbian marriage licenses Friday when the restraining order issued by state District Judge Kenneth Brown was to expire.

Brown then withdrew from the case, leaving open the possibility the order might expire and allow more same-sex licenses to be issued.

Instead, the high court’s five justices all ruled that the order would remain in effect until the lower court could act.



(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

New Montana group plans anti-gay marriage initiative

The Billings Gazette


HELENA – The Montana Family Foundation said Tuesday it will launch an initiative to amend the Montana Constitution this year to prohibit gay marriages.
The year-old organization plans to collect the necessary 41,020 voter signatures to get on the November ballot through its own members and their connections with churches and other organizations, President Jeff Laszloffy said.
"We're not planning to hire professional signature gatherers," he said. "I think we have all the help we need. We have a Web site set up where people can submit their name, and as soon as it's ready we'll send copies of the petition to them."
He said the organization has more than 1,000 members.
The initiative was no surprise to PRIDE, a statewide support organization for gays and lesbians.
"We believe that, ultimately, this kind of amendment will fail, because our understanding of the Constitution is that it extends liberty to people, it doesn't limit liberty," Executive Director Karl Olson said.
He said PRIDE will oppose the initiative, but he did not yet know in what way.
PRIDE has formed Our Montana Family in reaction to the initiative and to a growing backlash against efforts by gays and lesbians to gain civil rights, Olson said. It is an educational project to provide information to Montana's 1,200 same-sex households, he said.
The proposed amendment's wording was still being worked on Tuesday, Laszloffy said, but he said it would be brief and would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman "to provide the state courts direction on the issue of marriage."
Although Montana has a law defining marriage as a one-man, one-woman union, Laszloffy said the constitutional amendment is needed because Montana courts might someday strike down the statute. Montana law also prohibits same-sex marriages.
"California has a strong DOMA (defense of marriage) law, and look at the spot they're in," he said. "Sixty-one percent of them voted to keep marriage in its traditional form, but as soon as the San Francisco mayor began issuing marriage licenses, it put it in court."
He said Montana and 37 other states have "defense of marriage" laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. And he said 19 states have amended, or are in the process of amending, their constitutions to do the same.
"What is important to remember is the homosexuals want us to fundamentally change an institution that has proved itself over thousands and thousands of years, both in raising healthy children and maintaining a society," he said.
Laszloffy is a Republican state representative from Laurel and speaker-pro tem of the House of Representatives.
The Montana Family Foundation was established about a year ago and is affiliated with the national group Focus on the Family.
Laszloffy plans to retire from state politics when his term expires in 2005 to serve as the full-time executive director of the Family Foundation.

Support for same-sex civil unions hard to find among TN state senators

By BONNA de la CRUZ
Staff Writer

Interviews with most of the 33-member state Senate makes it clear they are not interested in allowing civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Twenty-four of 29 surveyed oppose recognizing same-sex civil unions, signaling probable passage of a bill today that would prohibit the recognition of such unions.

Sen. Jeff Miller, R-Cleveland, sponsor of the measure, said he wanted to extend the current prohibition on gay marriage to civil unions. ''Civil unions are just another way that the homosexual community is trying to validate their choices. I disagree with it, and feel that our society will be much better to keep the sacrament of marriage intact and not to water it down or to cheapen it by allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions.''

Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, was the lone senator of 29 who said the relationships should be permitted. ''They preserve order and structure to society, guaranteeing freedom, privacy, benefits and rights that are important when a person is dying, when a person is sick, when a person is in need of a companion to help them.''

The measure still must gain approval in the House, which already killed the civil unions bill once in a subcommittee. The House sponsor, Rep. Chris Clem, R-Lookout Mountain, said he is working to bring the bill back to life by bypassing the subcommittee.

Utica priest discloses he is gay

UTICA, N.Y. (AP) A priest with a history of advocacy for gay and lesbian rights has publicly acknowledged he is gay.

The Rev. Fred Daley, pastor of St. Francis de Sales Church, is believed to be the first priest in the seven-county Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse to publicly disclose he is homosexual.

``I'm the same person today as I was yesterday,'' Daley said. ``My expectation and prayer is that people will continue to love and respect me.''

Despite a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety about coming out publicly, Daley said he felt called by God to do so and is ready to accept whatever ``rejection or misunderstanding'' he encounters.

Daley told his congregation over the weekend.

``There might have been tears in his eyes,'' parishioner Christine Bart said. ``He got a standing ovation. It was obvious that people love him.''

All priests are committed to celibacy, and sexual orientation alone does not lead to dismissal from the priesthood, said Danielle Cummings, communications director for the diocese.

Daley, 56, has been pastor of St. Francis de Sales since 1992. For at least 30 years, the Utica parish has had a reputation for supporting the poor and fighting injustice. Last week, Daley received a ``Real Hero'' award from the United Way of Greater Utica in recognition of his work with the poor.

Daley was ordained in 1974. He also served at St. Mary Church, Jamesville. In 1987, while co-director of vocations for the diocese, he led a group of 16 local Catholics on a 10-day retreat in Nicaragua.

In September 2002, organizers of an interfaith Sept. 11 memorial service in Utica removed Daley as the main speaker after criticism of his advocacy for the gay and lesbian community.

Daley has celebrated Masses for gay and lesbian Catholics. Diocesan officials have said his participation in such services is not in opposition to church teaching.

``If celibacy were optional and if women could be ordained,'' said Daley in 1987, ``there would be no priesthood shortage in the Catholic Church. That's my opinion.''


Information from: The Post-Standard, http://www.syracuse.com


.

Gay couples to get joint rights

LONDON (Reuters) - The government has confirmed plans to give legal recognition to gay partnerships, a move bringing it into line with most other EU members.

Nine other countries in the European Union already have some provision for recognising those in committed same-sex partnerships.

Under the Civil Partnership Bill, same-sex couples will be allowed to make a legal commitment to each other at a formal ceremony and have similar rights on pensions and property to heterosexual partners.

"It opens the way to respect, recognition and justice for those who have been denied it for too long," minister for women and equality Jacqui Smith said on Wednesday.

"Same-sex couples often face a range of unnecessary problems in their everyday lives because of a lack of legal recognition of their relationships."

In the United States, the fight over gay marriage has become an election-year issue, with President George W. Bush backing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage after officials in various states, claiming ambiguity in the law, began marrying gay couples.

The British bill gives full recognition for the purposes of life assurance, the right to take over tenancy rights and pension benefits from a partner and an ability to gain parental responsibility for their civil partner's children.

Officials say it is intended to be passed into law by the end of the year.

Gay campaigners welcomed the move, with some qualifications.

"This is absolutely the most significant event in the history of gay rights in Britain. I never thought this would happen in my lifetime," Terry Sanderson of the Gay Times, Europe's biggest gay publication, told Reuters.

"My only regret is that they didn't offer us marriage and complete equality," he said.

Government officials said the Bill did not use the term "gay marriage" but that civil partnerships were designed to be as close to a marriage contract as possible.

The Conservatives have also moved to court the gay community, with a general election expected in the first half of 2005.

Senior Conservatives, anxious to shake off their anti-gay image, met homosexual rights campaigners this week to hear accounts of discrimination against gay and lesbians.

Massachusetts governor wants gay ruling delay

BOSTON — Gov. Mitt Romney ran into resistance from his attorney general Tuesday after arguing that gay marriage should be put on hold for at least another 2½ years now that lawmakers have backed a ban on same-sex weddings.

Legislators approved a constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriages while legalizing civil unions. If passed a second time during the next session, the measure would go before voters in November 2006.

But under a landmark decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in November, gay marriages are scheduled to begin in Massachusetts on May 17.

Minutes after the amendment's approval, the first-term Republican governor called on Democratic Attorney General Tom Reilly to ask the state's highest court to delay same-sex marriage until after citizens get a chance to vote on the amendment.

Reilly refused, arguing that the court had made itself clear in November and in an advisory opinion in February.

"The arguments the governor makes are political arguments," said Reilly, who is viewed as a possible gubernatorial opponent in 2006. "The governor's job is to implement the law of the state and I expect him to do that."

Romney reiterated his request Tuesday, asking Reilly to appoint a special assistant attorney general to handle the request if the attorney general himself was unwilling.

"It's not right that the governor and people of Massachusetts are left without recourse to the courts," the governor said. "The people of Massachusetts have a right to have the same level of time and respect that the plaintiffs have."

Several experts said Romney has no power to circumvent Reilly.

"The law in Massachusetts is clear that the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the commonwealth," said Boston attorney Robert Sherman, who served as special counsel to Reilly's predecessor. "It's the attorney general who makes the decision and not the governor."

Romney could potentially sue the attorney general's office, arguing that Reilly does not have the legal power to deny his request. Similar lawsuits have been filed in the past but have been rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court.

Attention now turns to the May 17 deadline and the fall elections, when lawmakers will have to defend their votes on the divisive social issue. All 200 legislative seats are up for election in November, and the amendment was approved Monday with only four votes to spare.

Lambda Legal Appeals Prudential Financial’s Denial of Medical Insurance Coverage for Lesbian Retiree’s Spouse Who She Legally Married in Canada

As national debate over marriage equality for same-sex couples continues, a New Mexico couple seeks respect for their marriage.

(Santa Fe, New Mexico, March 30, 2004) Saying that Prudential Financial’s denial of benefits to the spouse of a lesbian retiree is baseless and uncharacteristic for the company, Lambda Legal this week formally asked the company to reconsider the decision.


After her marriage in Canada, Laurel Awishus, a retired Prudential Financial employee who worked for the company for 20 years, sought to enroll her spouse of nearly 22 years, Kathy Adelsheim, in the medical benefits program offered to the company’s retirees and spouses.


Prudential Financial, headquartered in Newark, New Jersey, offers benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees, but says that it only offers those benefits in retirement if the employee retired after January 1, 2000. Straight spouses are entitled to benefits regardless of retirement date.


“When Ms. Awishus and her wife married in Canada, they became spouses and are entitled to benefits other spouses enjoy,” said Brian Chase, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s South Central Regional Office based in Dallas. “Prudential Financial’s action in this matter is a departure from their treatment of gay and lesbian employees in the past,” Chase said.


Prudential Financial is partly using the IRS’s definition of whether the women are married to justify its decision, and in its appeal letter to the company Lambda Legal said that rationale is flawed and the IRS does not decide who is married. Lambda Legal’s appeal notes Prudential Financial’s long history of support for lesbian and gay employees, and says the denial of spousal benefits is a “troubling” departure for the company. “Setting up a different standard for gay couples than for heterosexual couples is the very definition of discrimination,” Lambda Legal’s appeal letter says.


Same-sex couples across the country have been using legal marriages conducted in Canada to address the discrimination they experience in their daily lives. Canadian provinces began issuing marriages to same-sex couples last summer after court rulings requiring equal access to marriage.


“We are a married couple and should be treated as such. I worked for Prudential for 20 years and have a lot of respect for them, but I can’t respect they way they are treating us right now,” Awishus said.


“One of the reasons I’m in this precarious spot is that 19 years ago I moved with Laurel to New Jersey when the company transferred her. I left a promising career behind-that included benefits. I wasn’t treated like a spouse then because we weren’t married. Now we’re married, and that should be respected,” Adelsheim said.


Lambda Legal recently released “We Got Married in Canada, What’s Next?” a guide for couples who legally married in Canada and seek to have their marriages respected in the United States.

Massachusetts may not wed gay couples from 38 states, attorney general says

Massachusetts' attorney general said a 91-year-old state law prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples whose marriage would be illegal in their home state, an interpretation that could block gay couples from 38 states from tying the knot here.

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said Tuesday that when gay matrimony becomes legal in Massachusetts, it will apply only to Massachusetts residents and couples who live in states were no law expressly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Reilly based his decision on a 1913 state law that prevents out-of-staters from getting married in Massachusetts if they are ineligible for marriage in the state where they reside.

Currently, state municipal clerks require couples seeking a marriage license to sign affidavits that their impending nuptials would be legal in their home jurisdiction.

Gov. Mitt Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said that same-sex couples also will be required to sign such affidavits after May 17, the date the Supreme Judicial Court set for gay couples to begin being married.

Thirty-eight states have Defense of Marriage Act laws that define marriage solely as an institution between a man and a woman.

Reilly's interpretation came on a day he and governor sparred over whether the state should ask its highest court to delay same-sex marriages until voters can cast ballots on a constitutional amendment banning them.

Since the Legislature approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions, Romney has called on Reilly to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a stay until after citizens get a chance to vote on the amendment, in November 2006 at the earliest.

Reilly declined, arguing that the court had made itself clear in its original November decision and an advisory opinion issued in February. Reilly's office represented the state in the landmark gay marriage case.

"The arguments the governor makes are political arguments," said Reilly. "The governor's job is to implement the law of the state, and I expect him to do that."

That left Fehrnstrom fuming.

"Under our constitution, the attorney general is the gatekeeper to the Supreme Court. By his action, he's closed the gate on the people of Massachusetts," Fehrnstrom said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Net: www.state.ma.us/legis
©2004 Associated Press

Same-sex marriage: Religion sways local reaction

Same-sex marriage: Religion sways local reaction
By Kevin Saleeba / News Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Anthony LaPorta of Milford looked pleased as he laid down a copy of the Daily News at the public library yesterday after finishing an article about the state Legislature's vote Monday to ban same-sex marriage.

"Marriage should be between a man and a woman," said LaPorta, a devout Catholic. "I'm happy with this decision."

Lawmakers voted 105 to 92 in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow same-sex couples to form civil unions.

LaPorta was not quite as liberal as the lawmakers.

"I have no problem if they want to live together as roommates, but no hanky-panky," he said of same-sex couples. "If they want to be together, they should live a chaste life. No fooling around."

Other Milford residents agreed with LaPorta on the gay marriage issue.

Dan Foley of Milford said God is against homosexuality in the Bible.

"I go by what the good book says," said Foley. "The book says you need a man and a woman to procreate. I'm Catholic and that's the way I was brought up. They are trying to change the value of marriage. That's just my viewpoint."

Foley said he would not object to civil union. On the other hand, David Anniballi of Milford said he is against both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

"I'm against it all, because God is against it," said Anniballi, a born-again Christian. "I believe in God and what the Bible says. God is a against it. It's sinful."

The Legislature must approve the amendment again next year before it can reach the statewide ballot in November 2006.

Until then, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that gay couples are constitutionally entitled to marry as of May 17.

As a gay person, Kelly Carlson of Holliston said she was disappointed with the decision, however she said she is optimistic the fight for "equal marriage" will continue.

"I think the decision by the Legislature was the last stronghold of homophobia," said Carlson. "I'm certainly disappointed, but not devastated. We only lost by a handful of votes. This is just a step in the process. Once the gay weddings begin and the world continues to turn, I'm hopeful a lot of resistance will be gone. I'm really looking forward to seeing the weddings start happening on May 17."

Betty Kornitzer of Milford said, "I support equal marriage. This is a civil rights and a human rights issue."

Not everyone feels the same-sex marriage debate should be a black and white decision either way.

"I'm ambivalent," said Jim Ruddock of Milford. "I'm not really for gay marriage, but I don't think it would be such a horror if they got married. It doesn't really affect or bother me. I'm not gay, and I don't think them getting married will affect my marriage. I guess it doesn't bother me either way."

Religious Right Plays the Race Card

AlterNet, March 29, 2004

By Bill Berkowitz, AlterNet
After several years of hit-and-miss contact with the black community, the religious right is once again knocking on church doors and courting mainstream African Americans. This time they are looking for recruits for the right's anti-gay army, enlisting them as supporters and spokespersons for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
This move is not exactly unprecedented; recent history contains several examples of failed attempts by religious right organizations to engage African Americans.
In January 1997, Ralph Reed, then the executive director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, launched the Samaritan Project, an unprecedented outreach initiative aimed at the African American community. Reed touted the effort as a bold new direction for the fundamentalist evangelical organization – at the time the top religious grassroots group in the country.
Laced with proposals for abstinence-only sex education, "hope and opportunity scholarships" (also known as school vouchers), a $500 tax credit for donations to religious groups serving the poor, and empowerment zones for poor areas, Reed's Samaritan Project was, in reality, a rehash of the Coalition's legislative agenda. Reed left the Coalition in September 1997, and by January of the following year, the organization severed its ties to the Samaritan Project.
Promise Keepers, the once powerful men's movement that in recent years has nearly dropped off the media's radar screens, was founded in the early 1990s by former Colorado head football coach, Bill McCartney. "Race reconciliation" was a cornerstone of the organization's agenda. "The Spirit of God clearly said to my spirit, 'You can fill that stadium, but if men of other races aren't here, I won't be there, either,'" McCartney said.
PK spokesperson Tony Evans, an African American and a confidant of President George W. Bush, called the Promise Keepers movement an effort to "establish a church where everyone of any race or status who walks through the door is loved and respected as part of God's creation and family." "Race reconciliation" was less about racial justice and fundamental issues of institutional inequality and more of the "can't we all just get along" variety of reconciliation."
"Race reconciliation" was a catchy slogan, but throughout the 1980s and 90s, religious right groups like the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition consistently opposed civil rights legislation and supported the apartheid government of South Africa, according to Andrea Smith in ColorLines magazine. "Meanwhile," Smith writes, "the workforces at "evangelical institutions remained staunchly segregated."
A Question of Rights
The most common argument being trucked out by the constitutional amendment advocates for the African American community revolves around the question of civil rights. For this mother of all wedge issues, right-wing opponents are focused on convincing mainstream and traditionally Democratic Party-oriented African Americans that gays are sullying the history of the civil rights struggle in the U.S. by linking the battle for same-sex marriage to the decades long and bloody fight for civil rights.
Anti-gay marriage activists are experiencing some success bringing African Americans on board, especially amongst the clergy. The New York Times recently reported that The Alliance for Marriage, the "multifaith, multiethnic coalition that oversaw the drafting of the text for the constitutional amendment now before Congress, includes among its founders bishops from the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church of God in Christ, two historically black denominations."
In early March, Genevieve Wood, of the conservative Family Research Council told an audience of black evangelical ministers and lay persons that she needed their support because gays were "wrapping themselves in the flag of civil rights." Wood pointed out that she could argue "against that....but not nearly like you all can."
In recent weeks, Tony Perkins, the FRC's president, has gushed over support he is receiving from African American pastors during his vigil at the Massachusetts State House after the state Supreme Court ruled that excluding gay couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.
On March 10, Perkins wrote in his Washington Update that he joined "a national alliance of black pastors at the Boston State House" for a press conference that drew major media coverage. "African-American pastors from all over the country explained that homosexual 'marriage' is not a civil rights issue," Perkins wrote.
Perkins claimed that the pastors were shouted at by a "trio of lesbians," and he offered his "sincere appreciation to these Godly men for standing on the front lines of the battle and boldly affirming the union of one man and one woman, not only here in Boston, but in their home communities as well."
Where's the Balance?
Donna Payne, a board member with the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay and lesbian organization, is working to make inroads with liberal black clergy members.
"We have to find ministers who will stand with us," Payne told the New York Times. "We have to at least try to bring some balance to the discussion." Payne admitted that while this issue is certainly not the same as "back-of-the bus and Jim Crow....it's discrimination all the same."
While conservative efforts to recruit African Americans have generally borne little fruit in terms of support from black voters, right-wing foundations have established and funded a number of black-run conservative organizations, and supported a coterie of black conservative intellectuals, radio talk show hosts and pundits.
Given their overall political agenda, it isn't surprising that black conservatives – who manage to get a disproportionate amount of face-time on media outlets like the Fox News Channel – are eager to speak out against same-sex marriage. Star Parker, spokeswoman for the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, told the Washington Times that "the black community itself is just finding out that the homosexual movement has been using the civil rights movement to (promote its) agenda. And the black community is saying 'Absolutely not.'"
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, said "We were discriminated against simply because we were black, not because of who we had sex with. The homosexuals are just jumping aboard the civil rights movement for their own personal gain."
Possible Backlash
What about mainstream African American Democrats? At a March town hall meeting in Jackson, Miss., where John Kerry appeared to link the battle over same-sex marriage to the struggle over civil rights, two African American members of Congress wondered whether his comments might create a backlash against the Kerry candidacy.
"The civil rights movement was more of a movement for the equal rights of all Americans: education, voting rights, jobs," Rep. Arthur Davis (D-Ala.), told The Washington Times. "Whereas gay rights in terms of gay marriage is a movement for a special group of Americans. So I would not compare civil rights with gay rights." Rep. Bennie Thompson agreed and said that he was surprised by Kerry's comparison of today's battle for gay rights with the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s.
Will support in the black community for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage fracture the long-time black/Democratic Party coalition? Could this single issue take precedence over the many other issues where African Americans fundamentally disagree with conservatives? That, of course, is what the religious right is hoping for.

Marriage or Union? Mass. Gay Rights Fight at Early Stage - Both Sides Honing Political Strategies

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 31, 2004; Page A03


BOSTON, March 30 -- The day after the Massachusetts legislature gave initial approval to writing civil unions for gay couples into the state's constitution, opponents of same-sex marriage began focusing on plans to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said he will seek to get the state's highest court -- which touched off the firestorm when it ruled last November that prohibitions on gay marriage were unconstitutional -- to stay its ruling until voters could weigh in on the proposed amendment in 2006. Other opponents, including many religious groups, said they will try to replace legislators who approve of gay marriage and civil unions in this November's election.

The emotionally charged issue is dominating this state's politics, and proponents and opponents said it will remain a major theme here not only in the coming months but also for years.

Romney had asked state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to seek a delay in the Supreme Judicial Court's order that gay marriages be allowed beginning May 17. The governor said he wanted to avoid confusion should the constitutional amendment be approved in two years, the earliest state law allows the referendum to reach voters.

That amendment, whose wording was approved by legislators on a narrow vote Monday night, would ban gay marriages but inscribe civil unions into the constitution. Advocates on both sides are unhappy -- gays because it falls short of recognizing marriage, and conservatives because it condones civil unions.

Reilly, a Democrat who is considering a run for governor against Romney in 2006, rejected Romney's request to seek a stay from the court. Reilly, like Romney, opposes gay marriage, but he said Tuesday that "the governor had his day in court, I had my day in court, and we lost."

Their standoff came as both sides of the divisive debate work to hone their strategies for the coming weeks and months. Those efforts include a renewed focus on November's legislative elections, since lawmakers elected this year must vote again in 2006 on the amendment for it to be placed on the ballot.

Romney has been greatly involved in selecting candidates to challenge his Democratic opponents in the legislature, and fundraising for them. A candidate he helped recruit, who opposes same-sex marriage, won a special Senate election earlier this year over an advocate of gay rights.

Gerald D'Avolio of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said that the political arm of the Boston Archdiocese last week launched a voter-registration drive, its first ever, in part to try to help elect opponents of same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, a group of activists and legislators who favor same-sex marriage rallied at the statehouse Tuesday to declare their opposition to Romney's attempt to gain a stay from the court.

Sen. Stan Rosenberg (D) said that Romney "created the confusion he's talking about" by focusing on delaying the court's ruling rather than implementing it. He said the governor had not yet requested changes in the language printed on state marriage licenses and applications and birth certificates.

Romney said Tuesday that he will not tell local officials not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after May 17.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Setback Is Dealt to Gay Marriage in Mass, FBI seeks source of threatening fliers, Acceptance of Gays on Rise, Polls Show

NEW YORK TIMES Setback Is Dealt to Gay Marriage in Massachusetts

NEW YORK TIMES What Marriage Means to Gays: All That the Law Allows Others

NEW YORK TIMES Marriage: The Fine Art of Debating a Point Without Getting to the Point

DENVER POST Anti-gay missives spark probe; FBI seeks source of threatening fliers distributed in Denver area

LOS ANGELES TIMES Acceptance of Gays on Rise, Polls Show: While 30 years' worth of surveys consistently show a majority of Americans against same-sex marriage, they also reveal some remarkable shifts in attitudes

BOSTON GLOBE In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support marriage-limitation measure

BOSTON GLOBE Lawmakers speak out, pro and con, on proposed amendment

BOSTON GLOBE Editorial: A step backward

BOSTON GLOBE Vote ties civil unions to gay-marriage ban; Gov. Romney to seek stay of Supreme Judicial Court order

BOSTON GLOBE Attorney General Reilly rejects Gov. Romney's bid to seek a Supreme Judicial Court order to delay implementation of its gay marriage ruling, creating a major roadblock to the governor's plans to block same-sex marriages from taking place in May

BOSTON GLOBE A battle just begun for both supporters, foes; The opponents come face to face on Beacon Hill

ATHENS BANNER-HERALD (Georgia) Area gay couples share their stories of love and commitment

THE HERALD (Scotland) Catholic Church in Scotland urges local authorities to abandon plans for gay marriage ceremonies

THE SCOTSMAN Commentary: Why pink is new blue for Tories

THE JOURNAL NEWS (New York) Speakers discuss impact of gay marriage ban

CORVALLIS GAZETTE-TIMES (Oregon) Foes of gay marriage unite; Religious, moral and political beliefs bring group together

THE COLUMBIAN (Washington) Young Voices: Recent alarm over gay marriage is unnecessary

USA TODAY Politics in play at GLAAD awards

Thrice-wed former Congressman Bob Barr now opposes a gay marriage ban, Gay Marriage Plaintiffs in the Spotlight, Maryland House Passes Bill On 'Life

1. ASSOCIATED PRESS Thrice-wed former Congressman Bob Barr now opposes a gay marriage ban
2. ASSOCIATED PRESS Gay Marriage Plaintiffs in the Spotlight
3. WASHINGTON POST Maryland House Passes Bill On 'Life Partners'; 103-30 Vote Shows Bipartisan Support
4. WASHINGTON POST Theater: Marga Gomez's Perfectly Improper 'Names'

Associated Press, March 30, 2004
Ex-Rep. Barr Opposes Gay Marriage Ban
By David Espo
WASHINGTON (AP) – For the eight years Bob Barr served in Congress, he peered down with unflinching conservatism on witnesses appearing before his committees.
On Tuesday, the former Georgia congressman became the witness, describing himself a "proud conservative" still – and firmly opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I don't think it's the function of Congress to monkey around with state court jurisdiction," Barr said in testimony that put him at odds with Judiciary Committee Republicans looking back from the dais.
Once a state sets its own definition of marriage, Barr said, "I think the role of Congress is nil."
Barr testified at the first of five planned hearings on an amendment that President Bush supports but that has been greeted warily by some Republicans in Congress. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who presided over the hearing, said it is "difficult to tell if we will have a vote this year or not."
Several Republican aides said the measure remains far short of the two-thirds majority needed in both the House and Senate to send it to the state legislatures, three quarters of which must approve it before it would become part of the Constitution.
These aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said further changes are possible as Republicans look to increase support.
The current version says that marriage "shall consist of the union of a man and a woman." It adds that "neither this Constitution nor the Constitution of any state shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Some lawmakers have suggested that the proposal be changed to explicitly permit states to recognize civil unions, along the lines of a state constitutional amendment making its way through the Massachusetts Legislature. But that type of change would draw objections from some conservatives.
Barr was the leading supporter eight years ago of the Defense of Marriage Act, which former President Clinton signed over the objections of many Democrats. That measure said that under federal law, marriage could refer only to the relationship between a man and a woman. It also said that no state was required to recognize action in another state to allow same-sex marriages.
Supporters of a constitutional amendment say they fear the 1996 law could be overturned, with a requirement that all 50 states accord marriage benefits to same-sex couples wed anywhere in the country.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., scoffed at that argument, saying he hoped no lawmaker would suggest amending the Constitution on the basis of "a high-level moot court competition."
Barr said the law he authored would withstand court scrutiny, and other witnesses said the chances of it being overturned were slim.
"It's always possible that a judge will make a decision that doesn't make sense," said Vincent McCarthy of the American Center for Law and Justice.


Associated Press, March 30, 2004
Gay Marriage Plaintiffs in the Spotlight
By Theo Emery
BOSTON (AP) – All Julie and Hillary Goodridge wanted was a piece of paper signed by a town clerk that would call them married. "I didn't think my marrying Hillary was a groundbreaking, monumental, earth-shattering, presidential topic kind of an issue," says Julie Goodridge.
But as lead plaintiffs in the Massachusetts gay marriage case, the Goodridges have become the poster couple in a legal and religious controversy that continues to make front-page news. On Monday, the Massachusetts Legislature proposed a ban on gay marriage while legalizing civil unions.
The Goodridges – career women, mothers of 8-year-old Annie and self-described "middle-aged, tired soccer moms" – see their plans to marry in May as nothing more than a personal choice by two people in love.
"The way that this has kind of blown up has been kind of shocking," said Julie, "and also terribly exciting."
Letters – mostly supportive – have poured in since the state's highest court decided last November to allow gay marriages in a ruling that prompted Monday's vote.
A 2-foot-high stack of newspaper clippings in the Goodridges' home in Boston's Jamaica Plain neighborhood attests to their celebrity. Strangers recognize them on the street. And politicians – including those who oppose gay marriage – view them as symbols.
"They seem like two very fine women, very articulate, but I don't believe that you should change the definition of marriage to accommodate them," said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, a leading Catholic opponent of gay marriage and a one-time U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.
The spotlight is not likely to fade soon. In response to Monday's developments, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would ask the court to bar gay marriages until after November 2006. That's when the public will vote on the amendment to the state constitution proposed Monday.
Julie Goodridge said Tuesday their plans to wed May 17 – the first date such marriages would be allowed under the earlier court ruling - are unchanged for now.
But "the thought that they could take it away from us will be a black cloud," she said, adding: "It's so unnecessary. ... Let's get on with our lives."
The Goodridges were Julie Wendich and Hillary Smith when they met in 1985 at a Harvard lecture. As their relationship progressed and they contemplated buying a home and having a child together, legal obstacles materialized.
They drew up living wills, took as their surname the maiden name of Hillary's grandmother, and penned legal documents spelling out their relationship.
After Julie gave birth to Annie, Hillary was barred from seeing them in the hospital because she was legally attached to neither. She wheedled her way to their bedsides, at one point saying she was Julie's sister, at another resorting to tearful pleas.
"At the time, it certainly didn't occur to me that 'Gosh, if I was married, this wouldn't have happened,"' Hillary said.
Then, one day when Annie was 5, the little girl heard the Beatles song "All You Need is Love" and began listing people she knew who loved one another.
Julie and Hillary were not among them.
"What about Ma and Mommy?" Hillary asked.
"You two don't love each other," Annie said, adding: "If you loved each other, you'd be married."
Recalling the episode, Julie asked: "What do you do when your kid says that to you?"
"Go get married," Hillary said.
Julie, 46, who runs an investment company, and Hillary, 47, a fund-raiser for the Unitarian Universalistic church, learned that an organization called Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders was contemplating a lawsuit seeking to legalize gay marriage.
They asked to take part. GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto invited them to be lead plaintiffs, their names atop the court papers.
"Being a plaintiff in a case like this requires a certain amount of intrusion in their life," Bonauto said. "I thought they would best be able to stomach that kind of particular spotlight."
The Goodridges consented. "I don't think it occurred to either us what that might mean," Hillary said.
There was little initial fanfare when the lawsuit was filed in Suffolk Superior Court in April 2001. The case was thrown out, appealed and taken up by the Supreme Judicial Court. Then, last November, four of the seven justices ruled for the couples.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote for the majority.
That's when the Goodridges went from being pioneers to being celebrities. Letters arrived from across the country and around the corner. "I was very proud to be a Massachusetts resident today," wrote Annie's former swim coach.
Well-wishers sent flowers. The Goodridges reshuffled their lives for interviews and rallies. And when Hillary was shopping during the holidays, a cashier took her credit card and said, "Goodridge? As in, Goodridge?"
They've tried to shield Annie from the publicity, but she jokes about wanting to be a "maid of horror" at her mothers' wedding. The little girl also fretted for their safety after learning that a different kind of civil rights pioneer – Martin Luther King Jr. – was assassinated.
The Goodridges only hope that eventually the issue recedes from the headlines – and their lives.
"We can't live or die on this issue," said Julie. "This is not something that I intend to worry about for the rest of my life. I just want to get married and get back to work."


Washington Post, March 30, 2004
1150 15th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20071
(E-Mail: letterstoed@washpost.com )( http://washingtonpost.com/ )
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34441-2004Mar29.html
Md. House Passes Bill On 'Life Partners'
103-30 Vote Shows Bipartisan Support
By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Maryland House of Delegates gave final approval yesterday to a bill that would permit same-sex couples to register as "life partners" with the state health department, a designation that would grant them the same rights as married people to make medical decisions for each other.
The measure, which advocates called a first step on the road to civil unions for homosexuals, passed on a surprisingly strong, bipartisan vote of 103 to 30 after it was expanded to include any unmarried couple, regardless of sexual orientation. Those likely to benefit include elderly couples who choose not to remarry because it could jeopardize pension and other benefits from a deceased spouse.
Gay rights activists said they were astonished by the level of support for the bill at a time when most states are focusing on how to prohibit same-sex unions in the wake of court decisions favoring gay rights.
Nearly two dozen Republicans voted for the measure, including the author of a failed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Some socially conservative Democrats also voted for the bill, including a Baptist minister from Baltimore who at first had tried to kill it.
As the vote appeared on the computerized boards that hang above the House chamber, Del. Donald B. Elliott (R-Carroll) rose to explain that he thought "long and hard" before deciding to support the measure. Elliott said he concluded that the right to care for and bury a loved one is far more important than the possibility that the measure could advance the cause of gay marriage.
"This bill, as amended, provides basic human rights to a segment of our community who has been denied these rights," said Elliott, a 72-year-old pharmacist and retired Navy lieutenant. "This bill does not infringe on the belief of any of us that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman."
The measure now moves to the Senate, where advocates are hoping for a favorable reception as the General Assembly moves into the final two weeks of its annual legislative session. Sen. Paula C. Hollinger (D-Baltimore County), chairman of the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, said the measure should sail through the committee.
Hollinger, a nurse, said the need for such legislation is obvious to most health care providers. "When you work in a hospital, you see it every day," she said.
If the Senate approves the bill, it would be sent to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. for his signature. Ehrlich (R) has spoken out forcefully against same-sex marriage. But his communications director, Paul E. Schurick, said yesterday that he is not sure whether Ehrlich would reject the move to create a registry for "life partners."
Four states currently grant some of the same rights enjoyed by married people to same-sex couples, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization. Vermont recognizes civil unions of homosexuals. California and New Jersey allow couples to register as "domestic partners." Hawaii permits people to name a "reciprocal beneficiary."
Under the proposal, the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene would be required to develop a "Declaration of Life Partnership" form (as well as a "Notice of Termination of Life Partnership" form) and distribute it to county clerks and local health departments statewide. For a fee to be determined by the health department, the applicants would receive a registered copy to be presented to health care providers.
As registered life partners, couples would be entitled to 11 distinct rights, such as visiting each other in hospitals and nursing homes, making major medical decisions in the absence of written instructions, consenting to an autopsy and arranging for a funeral.
The measure would not permit Maryland officials to "recognize, condone or prohibit" same-sex marriage or civil unions entered into in another state.
In a related action yesterday, the House voted 95 to 40 to prohibit hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation.
Gay rights advocates were thrilled that Maryland appears to be bucking a national trend in opposition to the expansion of gay rights, and recognition of same-sex unions.
"In the rest of the states, it's all about anti-marriage bills," said Carrie Evans, a state legislative lawyer for the Human Rights Campaign. "And the vote: one hundred and three! That's a lot more than I had even wished for in my wildest dreams."
But Douglas Stiegler, executive director of the Family Protection Lobby, who testified against the bill, predicted that its passage would be "a disaster for everybody."
Referring to House members, Stiegler said, "I don't think most of them understood what they were voting on. . . . If you can create and dissolve an intimate relationship with a certified letter, it's bad."
• Staff writer Tim Craig contributed to this report.


Washington Post, March 30, 2004
1150 15th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20071
(E-Mail: letterstoed@washpost.com )( http://washingtonpost.com/ )
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34779-2004Mar29.html
Theater: Marga Gomez's Perfectly Improper 'Names'
By Peter Marks, Washington Post Staff Writer
Marga Gomez does a devastating Kathleen Turner in "Los Big Names," her funny new monologue about her adventures in the family business. Her parents were Latino entertainers who never achieved crossover success. Her father, Willie, was a Cuban-born comic; her mother, Margarita, a dancer from Puerto Rico. Marga joined them onstage in New York as a child, in the zany "La Familia Comica," a weekly sketch characterized by frozen facial expressions and cringe-inducing punch lines.
When she grew up, Gomez became an actress and comedian, a lesbian comic, she says, "B.E." (Before Ellen), and eventually made the pilgrimage to Hollywood, where she was mostly up for roles as hookers and maids. In pursuit of the part of a housekeeper in a Lifetime television movie, she took a meeting with Turner, who, Gomez asserts, thought to have her do a little light cleaning as she read for the role.
"I vacuumed her entire office," Gomez declares. Whether or not the sprucing up actually happened, it's a great topper for her story about Turner, one of a number of celebrity actors who suffer deep gashes from Gomez's satiric switchblade. (Her impersonation of the husky-voiced actress as a kind of swaggering, latter-day Tallulah Bankhead is delicious.) Not even Dustin Hoffman's digestive tract is spared in "Los Big Names," receiving its world premiere from Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company. The actor, she alleges, had a major problem with gas on the set of a second-rate sci-fi thriller, "Sphere," in which Gomez had a tiny role. The lesson for stars seems to be, if Gomez enters your orbit, take extra-special care to behave as if there's company in the house.
"Los Big Names" is a sweet and saucy riff on life on the outer edge of the spotlight by a woman who knows that foggy territory. Gomez's quest, it seems, whether growing up gay in a family ill-equipped to handle that, or finding her way as a Latina in an industry that views ethnicity as a kind of packaging, has been to try to figure out where – or even how – she fits in. Her show, staged whimsically by David Schweizer, ricochets between memories of her self-absorbed, warring parents and her quixotic efforts to take their legacy and run with it, to break through to mainstream audiences.
Gomez is among a small army of comics and authors who've sought to dramatize their La-La Land skirmishes in autobiographical evenings. The work of Gomez, who's been performing in one-woman shows for a number of years, bears some resemblance to that of another smart, potty-mouthed comedian, Margaret Cho; both chronicle their dust-ups with Hollywood, their battles against the efforts to pigeonhole them as ethnic types. Their inability to succumb comfortably to stereotype, to fit the studio mold, is precisely what makes them such compelling soloists.
Gomez, clad in a dark sailor suit, recounts in great detail her involvement in "Sphere," a movie set in the watery deep that, in the six short years since its release, has already earned the distinction of being long forgotten. Still, the film looms large here: Over Gomez's head Schweizer and designer Shannon Robert Bowen suspend a giant globe that haunts the stage like an unpleasant growth.
"Sphere" is indeed a fat target. (Gomez's character and performance both met premature ends, one on the ocean floor, the other on the cutting-room floor.) She mocks Sharon Stone's entourage, Samuel L. Jackson's attitude, Liev Schreiber's egotism, even the bob, held in place by barrettes, given her by the movie's stylists. "The scariest thing in 'Sphere,'" she notes, "is my hair."
If any aspect of "Los Big Names" could stand a bit of fine-tuning, it is the portion dealing with the author's feelings about Willie and Margarita. Gomez conjures her parents in a gentle, clear-eyed pair of impersonations. The perplexity is that the comic herself remains out of focus; the show never adequately explores the impact of the continuing tension between her parents, their frustration at their own thwarted careers, and what that does to their bright, talented daughter.
Perhaps Gomez is too close to fully understand, either. As she observes, she had the ability to complete an acting assignment on a day of wrenching personal turmoil "because my parents had reared a professional." That instinct is a fortunate asset, now as it was then.
• Los Big Names, written and performed by Marga Gomez. Directed by David Schweizer. Set, Shannon Robert Bowen; lighting, Lisa L. Ogonowski; sound, Robert Timothy Jarbadan. Approximately 90 minutes. Through April 18 at Kennedy Center Film Theater. Call 202-467-4600 or visit www.kennedy-center.org.

ma ag Reilly gives governor a hurdle, REJCTES rOMNEY'S bid to seek a Supreme Judicial Court order to delay implementation of its gay marriage ruling

By Frank Phillips and Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 3/30/2004

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly last night rejected Governor Mitt Romney's bid to seek a Supreme Judicial Court order to delay implementation of its gay marriage ruling, creating a major roadblock to the governor's plans to block same-sex marriages from taking place in May.

Reilly said that he informed Romney shortly after the Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that the governor's legal arguments have no validity, because the SJC has twice ruled in favor of gay marriage.

"It is very clear to me as attorney general that the majority of the SJC have made up their mind," Reilly said, adding that he strongly disagrees with the court's ruling. "That is the law of the state. My job as attorney general is to implement that law, and I will not compromise."

Reilly's decision, which he delivered personally to Romney in a phone conversation just before the governor went on live television to announce his plans, creates a major legal and political hurdle for the governor, who is intent on blocking the May 17 implementation of the court ruling.

Under state law, the governor can be represented in the courts only by the attorney general's office or lawyers who are appointed as special assistant attorneys general, according to personnel in Reilly's office familiar with the process. A senior Romney administration official said the governor's staff agreed with that reading of the law.

It was unclear last night whether Romney had asked Reilly to appoint a special assistant attorney general to represent him in seeking the stay. But senior aides to Reilly said he would reject such a request. Former attorney general James Shannon said that Romney has no legal recourse to press his appeal to the SJC without Reilly. "I don't think the governor has any option to get around the attorney general here," said Shannon, who supports gay marriage. "I think that's it as far as a stay is concerned."

Shannon said there is strong case law that gives state attorneys general broad powers to determine legal strategy. Because Reilly's office has been defending the state in the gay-marriage lawsuit, first filed in April 2001, ongoing decisions about the case are part of his legal strategy and are well within the attorney general's authority, Shannon said. Because none of the groups that wrote friend-of-the-court briefs in the gay-marriage case were parties to the case, Shannon said, they would not have legal standing to intervene.Romney and Reilly are potential rivals in the 2006 race for governor, but Reilly, a Democrat, insisted last night that his decision is solely based on legal issues: He is convinced that Romney's argument has no validity in light of the SJC rulings. Despite Reilly's statement to him that he would not entertain the petition, Romney went before television cameras at the State House and said he was making a formal request to the attorney general.

Romney's aides said the governor would deliver a three- to four-page letter to Reilly today detailing legal arguments for the stay.

"It's unusual for the attorney general to make a decision before first looking at the request from the governor," Shawn Feddeman, spokeswoman for the governor, said after Reilly told reporters of his decision to reject Romney's request. "We hope that when the attorney general sees our legal arguments, he will reconsider."

Asked why he would not wait to study the governor's legal briefs before deciding, Reilly said that the SJC in its Nov. 18 ruling and its February affirmation of that opinion had been clear and unequivocal in finding that same-sex couples were legally entitled to marry under the state constitution.

Reilly pointed out that he had helped write a Senate-sponsored bill that would have established civil unions provided all the protections of marriage, but the court, in very strong language, had rejected the concept as a violation of the civil rights of gay couples.

But Romney aides said the governor's legal argument has not been addressed by the justices: the notion that confusion and legal chaos would result if same-sex marriages are permitted beginning in May and then outlawed by voters in a 2006 referendum.

"That's a new argument the court has not heard," said Eric Fehrnstrom, the governor's director of communication. "We hope the attorney general will reconsider once he sees the governor's formal request."

Reilly said he is not swayed by the arguments that gay couples who marry will be hurt and that the state will be in legal confusion if the voters later approve an amendment banning same-sex marriages. "Everyone is going into this with eyes wide open," he said. "There doesn't have to be any chaos if people do their job."

Dwight Duncan, a lawyer for the Massachusetts Family Institute and other groups opposed to gay marriage, agreed with Romney that allowing gay couples to marry beginning May 17, with the prospect that voters might ban gay marriage in November 2006, invites legal chaos.

"It just seems to introduce a whole host of complicated legal questions," Duncan said.

Romney has insisted that he will "act within the bounds of the law" that exist on May 17, but all signals from his administration indicate he plans to take as many legal steps as he can to block implementation of the SJC ruling.

Gay-marriage opponents argue that the governor has the constitutional power to block same-sex marriages from taking place, a position that many prominent constitutional scholars say has no basis.

"The governor can act regardless of what the legislators do," said Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, a group that has called on Romney to seek a stay of the SJC's decision until voters have decided the issue in 2006.

Crews said lawyers for his coalition believe that Romney has the constitutional authority to define marriage. He said the state constitution is one of the few that involves the governor in marriage issues. Chapter 3, Article V, allows the governor a role in determining "all causes of marriage."

"We believe the governor has the law behind him," said Crews.

But many constitutional scholars reject the notion and say Romney's legal maneuvers will not sway the high court. They say the governor's powers under the Massachusetts Constitution regarding marriage are trumped by its equal protection language.

Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, said those requirements "must, like all other parts of the state constitution, be enforced by the governor in accord with the authoritative construction given to them by the SJC."

Tribe said the argument that the SJC delay implementation of its decision until the issue goes before voters in November 2006 is "speculative actual prediction" that voters will support an amendment that has only won initial approval from lawmakers. The amendment won't make it on the ballot until a second vote by the Legislature in its next session, beginning in January.

"Piling prediction upon prediction to ask the SJC for an unprecedented 2 1/2-year extension of a half-year stay already granted by the SJC . . . seems far-fetched in the extreme," Tribe said.

"Not only would such a further stay be unprecedented in its duration, but denying people the fundamental right to marry the partner of their choice purely on the gamble that this right may be rolled back by the electorate some 30 months hence would represent a step unprecedented in character."

Mary Bonauto, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders who represented the seven same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, said there is no basis for a stay because the law has not changed.

"This is just a bill that has been advanced for further consideration, but may not survive the next Legislature and certainly can be defeated at the polls," she said.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

MI Same sex marriage bill passes house, fails senate committee

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

A proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of man and woman passed the House Wednesday, March 24, after less than 90 minutes of debate.

Supporters in the Capitol hallways, watching the floor session on television monitors, cheered as the House voted 88 to 42 to pass the legislation.

“This issue is too important to leave to the Supreme Court justices,” said Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, introducing her bill on the House floor.

The people of Minnesota want to vote, reasoned Holberg.

Some 11 House DFLers voted for the amendment, which if passed by the Senate will appear on the ballot in November.

Three Republicans voted against.

DFLers speaking out against the proposed amendment — an amendment supporters perceive as vital in warding off judicial activism — labeled it a distraction concocted by Republicans to cloak the failings of the Bush Administration.

Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis, a lesbian member of the House, condemned the proposed constitutional amendment as extreme.

“Everything about it is extreme. And everything about it is mean,” she said.

The proposed amendment served as permission for people to act out their bigotry towards gays and lesbians, said Clark.

The House vote follows a large rally at the Capitol on Monday that had thousands of amendment supporters spreading out from the Capitol steps onto the mall.

Gov. Pawlenty supports the proposed constitutional amendment.

The question proposed to go before voters in November reads:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that marriage or its legal equivalent is limited to only the union of one man and one woman?”

Some supporters of the proposed amendment believe its passage would forbid civil unions.

Local House lawmakers voting for the proposed constitutional amendment included Reps. Greg Davids and Gene Pelowski.


Amendment fails in senate Judiciary committee

Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, believes in miracles.

She better pray.

On Friday,March 26, the Senate judiciary committee voted along party lines to defeat her high-profile proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

But the committee — with one Republican voting for and one DFLer voting against — passed a proposed constitutional amendment authored by Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, which would ask Minnesota voters whether the Minnesota Legislature alone, not the courts, could define marriage.

“His bill is better than no bill,” said Bachmann.

Still, gay marriage would be possible under it, she said. That’s because marriage is not defined as between man and woman, she explained.

Yet Bachmann was upbeat.

“The issue remains alive,” she said.

“At this point in the legislative session it’s better than nothing,” said Bachmann.

That might be exactly what supporters of Bachmann’s proposed amendment end up in the DFL-controlled Senate.

Speaking after Friday four-hours hearing, Betzold explained it was up to the Senate rules committee — DFL caucus leadership — to decide what to do with his bill.

He doesn’t plan to push for a hearing. Indeed, Betzold’s not certain whether he’d vote for his own bill if it reached the Senate floor.

Several committee members questioned whether the legislation would violate separation of powers — whether the Legislature would be encroaching into the judicial realm.

Betzold believes the proposed amendment would stand up, he said.

One things for certain, he will not tolerate language from Bachmann’s proposed constitutional amendment to be amended onto his bill.

“I’ll table it,” said Betzold. That is, the senator would in effect kill the bill.

NM Same-sex marriage: Licenses to be issued again?

By Joline Gutierrez Krueger
Tribune Reporter

A hearing Friday to determine whether to make permanent an order banning the issuance of Sandoval County marriage licenses to same-sex couples has been postponed, creating the potential for wedding bells to ring anew for gays - at least temporarily.

State District Judge Kenneth G. Brown on Monday recused himself from the case, which had been scheduled for a hearing Friday at the Sandoval County Judicial Complex in Bernalillo.

The postponement means the restraining order will expire, leaving open the possibility that Dunlap will begin issuing marriage licenses anew.

"If the injunction is not extended, there won't be a court order to prevent the Sandoval County clerk from issuing licenses," said Paul Nixon, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office.

Nixon said he did not know whether his office would seek to file another temporary restraining order while a new judge was being selected to hear the case.

"Honestly, at this point, I can't tell you, and I don't know," he said.

The hearing was expected to determine whether a temporary restraining order issued March 23 against Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap should become a permanent injunction.

The restraining order, issued by Brown and sought by the state Attorney General's Office, prohibited Dunlap from issuing any further marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Dunlap made national news by issuing the licenses for a few hours Feb. 20 before an advisory letter from the Attorney General's Office put an end to the practice.

By then, 66 licenses had been issued.

Dunlap said she planned to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples this month before the restraining order was imposed.

Paul Livingston, a longtime civil rights lawyer who is representing Dunlap, said Monday that while he had not yet spoken with her on specifics he believed she would begin issuing marriage licenses once the restraining order expired.

"One way or another, she will probably be issuing people gender-neutral marriage licenses as the law allows, and people will find it's not such a big deal," he said. "That's what I hope."

Livingston said he also filed a motion late Monday seeking to dismiss the restraining order, saying that it was based on untruths and that state law is already on Dunlap's side - not the side of the Attorney General's Office.

"The law seems pretty clear that clerks should issue marriage licenses when requested and that gender or race doesn't matter," he said.

What was left to decide, he said, was exactly what time on Friday the restraining order expires and at what time marriage licenses could be issued.

Parties for both sides must also now decide whether both can agree to another judge to hear the case. If they cannot, the Sandoval County court clerk will reassign the case.

That isn't expected to happen until April 12, state District Court officials said.

The case is likely to be given to state District Judge Louis P. McDonald, the only other judge whose courtroom is in Bernalillo.

Any of four other judges in Valencia and Cibola counties - all of which along with Sandoval County make up the 13th Judicial District - could also be selected to hear the case.

It was unclear why Brown chose to recuse himself. Calls to his office were not returned late Monday.

"We don't know why he recused himself, and nobody's told us," Nixon said.

Livingston said a secretary from Brown's office notified him of the recusal but gave no further information.

Dunlap is not raising the issue of same-sex marriage for political or personal gain but as a matter of law and to do her job, he said.

"I see someone who has gone out on a limb because of her commitment to equal rights and equal treatment," Livingston said.

Gay-vow backlash brewing in S.J. - EVANGELICALS SEEK TO TOSS OUT COUNCIL RULING

By Robin Evans
Mercury News

Incensed by the city of San Jose's decision to recognize same-sex marriages, a group of evangelical Christians has hired a well-regarded Sacramento consultant to explore a recall effort or ballot initiative to overturn the action.

``The repercussions are going to be different here than in San Francisco,'' said Bill Buchholz, pastor of the Family Community Church, of the council's March 9 vote. ``People make jokes about San Francisco. We don't want them making jokes about San Jose.''

Sacramento-based Russo, Marsh + Rogers will begin by surveying Silicon Valley attitudes before recommending a course of action, said Larry Pegram, a city council member for two terms in the 1970s who attends one of the churches involved, South Valley Christian. The firm's successes include the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis and the campaign for Proposition 22, the state initiative defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The firm could not be reached for comment Monday.

In Silicon Valley, the evangelical clout could be potent. San Jose has the largest concentration of evangelical megachurches -- those that draw more than 2,000 people to multiple Sunday services -- in Northern California, according to a study by the Hartford Institute for Religious Research. Most megachurches are in Southern California but in the north, no city has more than San Jose's four.

A conservative estimate puts the city's evangelical church membership at 20,000. And in general, the churches are experiencing rapid growth. Evangelicals believe in the literal truth of the Bible, including that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Political observers say it's not inconceivable the groups could collect the nearly 46,000 signatures needed to qualify a mayoral recall for the ballot. A referendum would take about 19,000 signatures.

``Overturning a city law would be unusual, but I wouldn't discount it,'' said Bill Spohn, a professor of religion at Santa Clara University. ``If you're a church leader, it's an issue you can really galvanize people around. In terms of politics, it's not so much money but the people they can mobilize.''

In 1996, a coalition of taxpayer groups and evangelical congregations collected 60,000 signatures to stop a domestic partnership registry approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors from taking effect. Two years later, the board, seeking to avoid a referendum over the controversial measure, voted 4-1 to repeal its own ordinance.

San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales said he hopes cooler heads prevail.

``This could be incredibly divisive for the people of San Jose and possibly their congregations,'' he said. ``I hope they'll allow some time to go by and see what the court says.''

But Gonzales' own unwillingness to wait until the state Supreme Court ruling expected this summer heightened the pastors' frustration. They met with the mayor before the vote, but he seemed to have his mind made up, said Doug Tiffin, one of the group of about 20 pastors at the meeting.

``We pleaded with him to wait, and he dismissed us,'' said Tiffin, pastor of the Crossroads Bible Church.

Recent findings by the Mercury News that the mayor is collecting campaign funds beyond city limits has only added to their consternation.

``It's a leadership style that seems to dismiss the input of the people,'' Tiffin said. ``He seems to put himself above the law, which we feel is poor leadership.''

The organizing group includes the pastors of Family Community Church, Jubilee Christian Center, Cathedral of Faith, South Valley Christian Church -- who altogether preach to nearly 15,000 on a Sunday -- and other evangelical churches whose services attract 1,000 to 2,000. Interest in the campaign is reportedly growing outside that church coalition.

``If there is action taken, and I sense there probably will be, it will certainly be broader-based than just a group of pastors,'' Pegram said. He belongs to the Values Advocacy Council of Santa Clara County, a year-old organization that helped raise $10,000 to hire the consultants. ``The city council decision was certainly the catalyst to bring all of the interested people together.''

This is the ``sleeping giant'' that local clergy warned would be awakened by the council's action in response to San Francisco's authorization of same-sex marriages last month. Thousands of couples from all over the country flocked there to be wed.

One of them was San Jose city employee Tina Salas, who then sought city benefits available to married couples but not domestic partners -- for example, health care for the couple's children. Her request prompted the city to move swiftly to allow her to immediately qualify for marriage benefits.

For Gonzales, it was an equal-rights decision, one that will be rescinded if the state Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage this summer.

A good number of Christian pastors supported the city's decision. And Santa Clara County filed a friend of the court brief to help San Francisco as it battles the state over the right to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

To most of the South Bay's evangelical pastors, who largely don't support domestic partners' policies but have chosen not to oppose them, sanctification of same-sex marriage crossed the line -- violating not only a moral code but state law -- Proposition 22.

``You have a city official telling you same-sex marriage is a civil right. We want people to understand this is someone redefining something that God created,'' Buchholz said. ``We may not be unanimous about this, but the majority of the churches are united. We're going to take a stand.''

The same-sex marriage issue promises to be as galvanizing as abortion, at the local, as well as national, level, said Kyle Fisk, executive administrator of the National Association of Evangelicals.

``Frankly, this may be the mobilizing issue,'' he said. ``And it's not just evangelical Christians but Catholics, Mormons and Jews who are concerned about protecting the definition of marriage and the family as the basic social structure of our country.''

KY Protestors Seek Same-Sex Marriage Ban - but Fail

Thousands of religious protesters rallied at the state capitol Monday, calling for a revival of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. They also wanted gay civil unions to be barred in the state.

But lawmakers adjourned last night without action on the measure. The rally, organized by the conservative Family Foundation, coincided with the last scheduled day for the General Assembly to pass legislation.

Last week, the House defeated a version that would ban same-sex marriages. It failed to gain the 60 votes necessary to go on the ballot.

The protesters urged the House to consider the version passed by the Senate, which would apply to marriage and civil unions.

The proposed amendment could still be considered when the legislature meets April 12th and 13th to take up any gubernatorial vetoes.

Against odds, GOP lawmakers push for federal amendment

By Noelle Straub
Tuesday, March 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans are pressing ahead on a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage despite almost overwhelming odds against passing it, leading Democrats to slam the effort as nothing more than an election-year show.

``I think that there are those who are advocating this legislation, this constitutional amendment in an effort to polarize and to divide the country in ways that can be very emotional,'' Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said.

The Federal Marriage Amendment, which would restrict marriage to between a man and a woman, has only nine co-sponsors in the Senate, far from the 67 senators needed to approve it.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) vows to try to force a vote this year.

The two Colorado Republicans who introduced it, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, recently changed its language to try to attract more support. The new bill would allow states to create civil unions and grant domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples.

But several Senate Republicans denounced the measure, and even allies of President Bush [related, bio] realize they would not have the votes to pass it.

Pupils won't sing at service, Not enough parents gave permission. Event involves gay, lesbian groups.

Syracuse Post-Standard, March 26, 2004
5795 Widewaters Parkway, Syracuse, NY, 13214
(Online Mailer: http://www.syracuse.com/contactus )
( http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard )


By Renee K. Gadoua, Staff writer
A Syracuse elementary school choir that emphasizes diversity will not perform Sunday at an interfaith service planned by local gay and lesbian groups because too few parents gave permission for their children to participate.
Francine Berg, director of H.W. Smith Elementary School's Rainbow Kids international chorus, said Monday she expected 20 to 25 of the more than 100 fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade pupils to participate in Equality Begins at Home at 6 p.m. Sunday at May Memorial Unitarian Universalist Society, DeWitt.
By Thursday, three or four children had returned permission slips, and Berg canceled the group's participation. She said at least 15 choir members typically participate in events outside school on weekends or evenings.
Principal Sharon Birnkrant said it's likely some parents did not want their children at an event that includes gays and lesbians.
"I'm sure it was an issue for some," she said. "In a school that is as diverse as ours we cannot assume the subtleties of each person's religions or beliefs."
Pupils at H.W. Smith, 1130 Salt Springs Road, come from at least 40 countries and practice a variety of religious traditions.
Birnkrant said scheduling and transportation problems also played a role.
"I will never say what causes a family to make a decision, especially on a weekend which is so precious," she said.
Birnkrant said she approved Berg's request for the Rainbow Kids to participate in Equality Begins at Home. Berg said she made the commitment in November and the choir has known about it for at least a month.
Organizers describe the event as a celebration of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in song and sacred text. It is organized by Syracuse's Stonewall Committee, May Memorial, and Ray of Hope Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Christian church founded to support gays and lesbians.
The service will include performances by Berg, cantor at Temple Society of Concord; Jody Kessler, an Ithaca-based folk musician; Bruce Coville, a children's author who lives in Syracuse; and Out Loud Chorus, a gay and lesbian choir from Ithaca.
This is the first time in six years a children's choir was invited.
Neil Driscoll, city school district spokesman, was surprised to learn Thursday the choir had canceled.
"We had no problem with it," he said. "We thought everything was set."
He said the superintendent's office has received no calls from people complaining about the event. The district is committed to respecting diversity, he said.
The Rainbow Kids have performed at events including a Hospice service at a Syracuse Baptist church; a Clinton Square rally supporting Syracuse schools, with the Syracuse Opera; and at local malls and a local synagogue. Some performances were on weekends or in the evening.
During a rehearsal in the school's auditorium Monday, about 50 fifth- and sixth-grade pupils practiced several songs, including a Russian folk song and a song with the words "shalom" and "peace."
"We are the people of the 21st century," the children sang. "We are the future. . . . We have the chance to do it right."
Berg said she spoke several times with the choir about the concert. Thursday, several children told her their parents disapproved, Berg said.
Diana Sponsler, president of the school's Parent Teacher Organization, said her daughter, Angela, a sixth-grader, planned to sing at Sunday's service.
"If it happens, she'll be there," Sponsler said. "I have no problem with it."
Sponsler, whose 15-year-old daughter was also a Rainbow Kid, said response for Sunday's event seems low.
"It may have to do with the group they're participating with," she said.
That would be unfortunate, she said.
"To me, Rainbow Kids is about diversity and honoring and respecting the differences between people."

Text of MA gay marriage ban amendment proposed by joint leadership

The following is the text of a new version of the proposed constitutional amendment developed by leaders of the House and Senate. Similar to a version already given preliminary approval by the Legislature, the new version clarifies that this amendment asks voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, and that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

"The unified purpose of this Article is both to define the institution of civil marriage and to establish civil unions to provide same-sex persons with entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are afforded to married persons, while recognizing that under present federal law same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available to married persons.

"It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in the commonwealth. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they otherwise meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage. Civil unions for same sex persons are established by this Article and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded to persons married under the law of the commonwealth. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.

"This Article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this Article."

HRC: MASSACHUSETTS VOTE IS TEMPORARY SETBACK ON ROAD TO EQUALITY

WASHINGTON - HRC President Cheryl Jacques released the following
statement on the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention vote:

"Today's vote by the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention was a
setback. However, we are on a long road toward ensuring equality in
Massachusetts and America. The Massachusetts Legislature will consider
this amendment again next year.

"On May 17th, marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples in
Massachusetts. American life will move forward as it always has with
committed families caring for each other and taking responsibility for
their own health and welfare.

"Over the next two years, as the constitutional process continues, the
people of Massachusetts and America will see that marriage equality is
good for families and good for America.

"I served the people of Massachusetts for nearly 12 years. I know they
will ultimately reject discrimination and side with fairness for all
families.

"The Human Rights Campaign thanks the Massachusetts legislators who
voted against discrimination. We hope their remarkable efforts and hard
work will help defeat this amendment next year.

"MassEquality has been an extraordinary leader in efforts to end
discrimination and ensure equality. Through their tireless efforts, this
organization continues to be a beacon to all Americans who support
equality and fairness.

"HRC will continue to fight discrimination in Massachusetts and
nationally so that every American family has the same rights and
responsibilities."

The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender political organization with members throughout the
country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and
educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest
and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Massachusetts legislature takes 'wrong and ugly step toward amending the world's oldest living constitution'

Narrow vote moves amendment banning equal marriage rights forward

Following is a statement from Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director:

"Today, the Massachusetts Legislature took a wrong and ugly step toward amending the world's oldest living constitution to enshrine discrimination against a minority - gay and lesbian families. But, this fight is not over, it's just beginning. We pledge our continued commitment to this struggle and to the Massachusetts lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. With them, we'll do everything possible in the coming months to make sure this measure does not pass when it comes before the Legislature again next year. Failing that, we will defeat it at the polls in November 2006. Based on 31 years of fighting anti-gay extremists and bigotry, the Task Force is confident that equal rights will prevail.

On behalf of our national community, we thank our brave allies in the Legislature and praise the extraordinary work of MassEquality for fighting so hard against a venomous onslaught unleashed by right wing extremists. Their efforts have been an unprecedented display of courage, tenacity and strategic brilliance."

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has been a leader in working with MassEquality to defend equal marriage rights, including: (a) donating $25,000 to MassEquality to hire a full-time campaign director; (b) assigning veteran MA activist Sue Hyde from our Cambridge office to help organize rallies and develop campaign strategy; (c) coordinating a Power Summit in Boston (March 25-28) to train activists in identifing pro-marriage voters, and raising an additional $15,000 for MassEquality during the fundraising training track; (d) bringing our National Religious Leadership Roundtable to Boston (March 8-10) to speak to legislators and show that faith leaders do, indeed, support marriage equality; and, (e) providing data and analyses to support the MA marriage equality work, including a ground-breaking analysis of the economic disparities faced by MA same-sex couples because they are denied equal marriage rights.

More information and resources on the struggle for equal marriage rights can be found in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Marriage Information Resource Center at http://www.TheTaskForce.org/marriagecenter

For detailed information on the happenings in MA,as well as the text of the proposed amendment, log on to the Boston Globe Web site at http://www.boston.com

***************************************************************
Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was the first national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization and remains the movement's leading voice for freedom, justice, and equality. We work to build the grassroots political strength of our community by training state and local activists and leaders and organizing broad-based campaigns to defeat anti-LGBT referenda and advance pro-LGBT legislation. Our Policy Institute, the community's premiere think tank, provides research and policy analysis to support the struggle for complete equality. As part of a broader social justice movement, we work to create a world that respects and makes visible the diversity of human expression and identity where all people may fully participate in society. Headquartered in Washington, DC, we also have offices in New York City, Los Angeles, and Cambridge. For more information on the Task Force, log on to http://www.TheTaskForce.org

Pressure on Brazil to Drop UN Human Rights Resolution Strengthens

IGLHRC rallies support from other sponsors



Developments in Geneva over the weekend indicate that Brazil will not continue as the prime sponsor of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Human Rights. However, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and its global allies are rallying to ask other supporters of the resolution to step forward as prime sponsors.

According to IGLHRC, the Resolution can still go forward without Brazil in the lead. "We applaud Brazil's leadership on this issue. It has taken a heavy hit from many powerful forces for daring to stand up for the rights of sexual minorities," said Paula Ettelbrick, IGLHRC's Executive Director. "While this is a setback occasioned by intensive lobbying pressure from the Vatican, Islamic states and the far right wing, there are many countries who fully support this resolution and are committed to seeing it go forward."

Dozens of global advocates supporting the resolution have already gathered in Geneva to meet with government officials as well as human rights experts who have long acknowledged the violence and discrimination faced by lesbians, gay men and transgender persons in official United Nations documentation and reporting. The pressure increased in recent weeks as it became clear that support for the resolution was growing, particularly in Latin America, as sexual rights advocates have met with their government representatives at home.

According to Susana Fried, IGLHRC Program Director, the Resolution gives voice to the tremendous surge in LGBT organizing around the world over the last ten years. If passed, "it could be invoked to call on states to end all discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation and to uphold all of their rights, including in economic and social arenas, such as access to health, education and housing,"

Massachusetts lawmakers propose civil unions, Amendment would ban same-sex marriage

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.

The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.

Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions -- rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments -- including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.

The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.

Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.

The version adopted Monday is the best possible solution, said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees.

"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Lees, who sponsored the measure with Senate President Robert Travaglini. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But this amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples."

Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions.

While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the constitutional convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.

Police tried to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.

"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."

After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.

"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."

Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"

"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."

San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some other counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

KY Capitol Hears Both Sides In Same-Sex Marriage Battle

An issue that's dividing lawmakers and many Kentuckians is again center stage at the state Capitol.

Monday, thousands of people converged on Frankfort, in either support or opposition to a same-sex marriage amendment.

Friday, House Republicans walked out of the state house chamber after Democrats attached to a Senate bill another provision that would limit judicial power in legislative matters.

Republicans said the addition would confuse voters and make the bill vulnerable to legal challenges, where it could be tossed out before the election.

If eventually passed by voters, the amendment would permanently ban same-sex marriage in Kentucky.

Some lawmakers spent part of their weekend rallying hometown crowds in support of the gay marriage ban.

Thousands of those folks marched in Frankfort Monday. About an hour long rally took place in front of the Capitol. About 3,000 were in attendance.

Supporters of a same-sex marriage ban say the fight isn't over yet. It was one-part political rally, one-part prayer revival, with supporters of the same-sex marriage ban showing strength in numbers.

A much smaller group organized by the Fairness Coalition held a rally inside the Capitol.

This whole issue started after actions in other states, including California, where some local officials married same-sex couples in defiance of existing laws.

In Massachusetts Monday, lawmakers are deciding what to do about an amendment there that would ban same-sex marriage, but would allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.

Those civil unions would give the couples legal rights in areas including hospital visitation, joint property ownership and inheritance, but it would not call their relationship a marriage.

Young people most accepting of gay marriage, Anti-gay-marriage crusader to file a legislative bill to remove four MA Supreme Judicial Court justices

SEATTLE TIMES Young people most accepting of gay marriage, poll finds

ASSOCIATED PRESS Gay couples say marriage has changed their lives

BOSTON HERALD Anti-gay-marriage crusader to file a legislative bill to remove the four Supreme Judicial Court justices who supported homosexual unions

DALLAS MORNING NEWS The marrying kind: Gay-marriage movement resembles some other civil-rights struggles, but comparing them is dicey

ST. PAUL PIONEER-PRESS Minneapolis City Council's 3 gay members break ground

THE OREGONIAN Gay marriage: who did, didn't and why: I DO: One-third of Multnomah County's same-sex couples marry within five days

THE OREGONIAN Gay marriage: who did, didn't and why: I DON'T: For many who haven't married, question is if, not when

CHICAGO TRIBUNE Dawn Turner Trice: Blacks' opposition to gay civil rights ignores history

FALL RIVER HERALD-NEWS (Massachusetts) Gay community speaks out against civil unions

RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH (Virginia) Point Of View: (Barney) Frank question alters debate on gay marriage ("Who are we hurting?")

ORLANDO SENTINEL Gay-rights backers rally at City Hall

PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE Visiting Church of England bishop wants end to Anglican rhetoric on gay clergy

KANSAS CITY STAR Missouri gay-marriage ban could alter election

WICHITA EAGLE Gay-union fight not over; Religious leaders say they will push to revisit the Senate-defeated issue of adding a same-sex marriage ban to the Kansas Constitution

ASSOCIATED PRESS Provincetown preparing for influx of gay marriage license applicants

LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER (Kentucky) Gay issue mobilizing Christians; Re-energized churches apply pressure in Frankfort

SEATTLE TIMES Companies can clean up with same-sex products

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL M. Charles Bakst: It's time to listen to gay voices

THE SCOTSMAN TV Doctor to Address Tories at "Gay Summit"

BERKSHIRE AGLE (Massachusetts) Editorial: A gay-marriage tide

Round 3 on gay marriage in MA today, Complicated moves on ban expected

By Raphael Lewis and
Matthew Rodriguez, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 3/29/2004

When state lawmakers convene today in a bid to settle the fight over a constitutional ban on gay marriage, they will walk into the most daunting day of parliamentary maneuvering, strategizing, and voting in modern Beacon Hill history.

Lawmakers, spent after two previous sessions this year, may cast anywhere from three to a dozen votes over the next three days on a dizzying array of amendments and amendments to amendments.

The measure facing the shortest distance to passage, sponsored by Senate leaders, would ban same-sex marriage but create civil unions with many of the rights and benefits of civil matrimony. But if it can't attract a majority of legislators, any number of rival proposals could win the day.

Any of the measures, if advanced this week and again in the 2005-06 legislative session, would give voters a chance to decide the future of gay marriage in Massachusetts on the November 2006 ballot. On the other hand, if supporters of the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage can gather enough sympathizers, they stand an excellent chance of blocking any amendment put forth.

"This is the endgame, crunch time," said Representative Michael E. Festa, a Melrose Democrat who hopes to defeat all amendments on the table. "I am so excited about this, but I don't want to blow it. We are dealing with powerful forces on the other side. There are crosscurrents, and knowing we want to win, we have to use every tactic at our disposal."

While no credible voice on Beacon Hill would dare predict how the final vote will go, it is clear to all 199 lawmakers involved that the stakes are extremely high.

The Legislature will conduct its divisive debate with Election Day eight months away, and advocacy groups have begun marshaling troops, appealing to voters, and raising cash to punish lawmakers who oppose their views.

Several moderate Democrats, most notably Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Therese Murray of Plymouth, realize that their reelection hopes may hinge on the Legislature's ability to pass a proposed ballot measure banning gay marriage. Twenty-two unified Republicans in the House have much to fear, despite their small numbers in the Democrat-dominated Legislature. After all, they may end up casting the decisive votes for the leadership measure sponsored by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini that would ban gay marriage and create civil unions. Or they could vote against it and let gay marriages take effect unchallenged May 17.

Travaglini's relationship with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran also hangs in the balance. If the speaker breaks with the top senator -- most likely by trying to split a Travaglini-backed amendment into two ballot questions, one banning gay marriage, the other creating civil unions -- it could poison their relations. That could affect decisions over the budget and other state business.

Finneran, in a brief interview, would not say whether he would continue to back the measure he sponsored with Travaglini, but said, "My conversations with the Senate president, I always treat them as private."

Travaglini, also interviewed briefly, said he met with Finneran on Thursday and emerged "confident that the support that we received collectively in the last Constitutional Convention will maintain itself. I am hopeful we will reach a conclusion when we reconvene on Monday," he said, adding that he has no reason to doubt Finneran's resolve.

The Senate president would not discuss what might happen if the Legislature cannot reach a workable consensus on the issue by Wednesday, the last day scheduled for the constitutional debate.

Three major proposals to ban gay marriage are on the table when debate commences today, each requiring a minimum of three roll-call votes to move on to the next legislative session. If 101 legislators pass one of the amendments, lawmakers must approve it again in the 2005-2006 session before voters can decide the issue at the ballot box in November 2006.

One measure is the proposal sponsored by Travaglini and Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees to ban gay marriage and allow civil unions for gay couples. A version of that amendment, which Finneran cosponsored, won majority support in the last Constitutional Convention, which ended March 11.

Another measure, sponsored by Republican Representative Vinny M. deMacedo of Plymouth, would offer voters two ballot questions, one banning gay marriage, the other establishing civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage -- essentially, Travaglini's measure split in two.

A third proposal, written by Paul Loscocco, a Holliston Republican, would ban gay marriage and direct the Legislature to create and define civil unions at some point.

Those items will come up for a vote only if others sponsored by Travaglini and Senate allies are thwarted first. If Travaglini can muster the votes for the amendments he backs, deMacedo's and Loscocco's don't stand a chance.

Many conservative lawmakers are furious that Travaglini engineered the situation to make sure his own measures come up first. Critics from both parties, such as House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. or House Ways and Means Vice Chairman Peter J. Larkin, contend that Travaglini has acted like former Senate president Thomas M. Birmingham, who in 2002 shut down the first constitutional debate over gay marriage to prevent a ban from being passed.

While many lawmakers appear to have qualms about Travaglini's amendment, the East Boston Democrat has several weapons to advance the legislation to the next legislative session.

For one, Travaglini controls the constitutional debate, so if a lawmaker attempted to split his measure Travaglini would probably rule a move out of order. Also, he knows that the Legislature's firmest gay-marriage supporters -- there are about 50 of them -- will probably back his amendment right up until a final, conclusive vote, because they prefer it to others waiting in the wings.

When that final vote comes up, Travaglini can probably bank on the House Republicans, 22 of whom have voted as a cohesive bloc, to support his amendment, reasoning that getting an initiative to the ballot is better than nothing.

Governor Mitt Romney, a foe of gay marriage, is considering a legal strategy to ask the state Supreme Judicial Court to stay its landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage if the Legislature sends an amendment to the next legislative session.

Jones, the top Republican in the House, conceded that he and his GOP colleagues have a dilemma. But in the end, he speculated, the Republican caucus may fracture -- some voting with Travaglini and some refusing.

"In the end, this is all about `What do I feel comfortable sending to the voters?' " said Jones, of North Reading. "I, personally, would be very reluctant to send this current compromise forward, and there is a lot of reluctance in the caucus. If we do support it, it would not be with any great sense of pride."

Gay-marriage backers worry that, if deMacedo or Finneran succeeds in forcing a vote on two distinct ballot questions, foes of expanded rights for same-sex couples could later kill the civil-union measure, leaving gays and lesbians with nothing.

Jones hoped to dispel such fears, saying he and the 21 like-minded House Republicans promise to "send both forward or kill both together." "We're not going to play games here," he said.

On the last gay-marriage vote cast by the Legislature, on March 11, the Travaglini compromise measure passed, 121 to 77, as 22 Republicans supported it to make sure the gay-marriage debate stayed alive. If they were to back out Monday, the measure would probably fail to muster the 101 votes needed to survive. With the Republican votes, it probably passes by a comfortable margin.

Assistant Senate Majority Whip Robert A. Havern III, a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, said he believes the Republicans will ultimately find themselves in the hot seat because, by his count, Travaglini has the support necessary to bring his measure to a final, decisive vote.

"That last vote is where the rubber hits the road," Havern said. "That puts some people in an awkward spot . . . The House Republicans seem to be the key."

Lobbying pressure on all sides has been intense. On Friday, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the legislative arm of the four Bay State dioceses, issued a press release backing any effort to send voters two separate ballot questions, arguing that such a procedure would be less confusing.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent 150 volunteers to Burlington and East Boston Saturday, hoping to win over voters.

Gay-marriage lobbyist Arline Isaacson, a constant presence in the State House for the past few months, fretted that some sympathetic legislators are growing weary that some lawmakers may not have the stomach to prevent a ballot question from going to the voters, even if they sympathize with same-sex couples.

"A lot of them are starting to get concerned about the process, and it couldn't happen at a worse time for same-sex couples, who feel their lives are on the line here," Isaacson said.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

Mass. Legislature Gathers for Third Convention on Gay Marriage

BOSTON -- Competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse as advocates gathered to witness a third round of the Legislature's debate over a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The convention resumed after protesters gathered. In mid-March, when lawmakers last met in a constitutional convention, they gave preliminary approval to a ban on same-sex marriage that would simultaneously legalize civil unions for gay couples if approved by voters in November 2006.

The measure was little solace to gay-rights supporters, who want lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the Supreme Judicial Court in November. Conservatives were not much happier with the compromise, which would make Massachusetts only the second state to legalize civil unions.

Conservatives aren't much happier about the compromise amendment, saying they want an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but without creating civil unions.

While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.

Within minutes of the Statehouse doors opening at 8 a.m., hundreds had gathered outside the House chamber and were competing for key positions at the front rope, facing the House chambers. Police gathered, trying to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.

"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "We're advising individuals in the crowd to try not to push each other. It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."

After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.

"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."

Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that reads "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"

"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."

The debate so far -- coming on the heels of a court ruling that is set to legalize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts beginning in mid-May -- has already produced 28 hours of emotional speeches.

Lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to reach a compromise in February on a proposed gay marriage ban and took a month off. They then spent an additional 10 hours on the issue earlier this month before taking another break.

According to transcripts, 76 lawmakers have given a total of 100 speeches on the issue, offering intensely personal stories about love, marriage, family, equality, heritage, race and religion.

"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," said Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, a black woman who was raised in the South. "I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."

San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush has endorsed a movement to amend the Constitution to ban the practice.


© 2004 The Associated Press

GOP Playing Politics on Gay Marriage, Democrats Say, Seeking Votes at Polls If Not on Hill, Party Pushes Amendment

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer

Despite indications that a bid to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages has little hope of passage, GOP congressional leaders continued to push the amendment yesterday, prompting Democrats to charge that Republicans are orchestrating an emotionally divisive issue for the fall elections.

With several Republican lawmakers joining many Democrats in publicly opposing the proposed amendment, Capitol insiders question how the narrowly divided House or Senate can possibly reach the two-thirds majority each chamber would require to send it to the states for ratification. Still, the Senate held another hearing on the matter yesterday, and House leaders say they plan to tackle the bill later this year -- closer to the Nov. 2 election.

President Bush supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Presumed Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) says he opposes gay marriage, but feels states can handle the matter without amending the Constitution. The issue also could play out in House and Senate races this fall, especially if an ongoing congressional debate keeps it stirred up.

With polls showing that most Americans oppose same-sex marriages, Republican strategists say they do not need to win passage of the amendment in the House and Senate to win politically at the nation's voting booths.

Securing 290 votes in the 435-member House -- where even some high-ranking Republicans have spoken against the amendment -- "is going to be very hard to do," Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said in a recent interview. But "we're not backing off it at all," he said. "We work it every day." The gay marriage question, DeLay said, "is a huge defining issue" among voters, and it definitely helps Republicans more than Democrats.

GOP strategists hoping to press that advantage do not want either house to call a vote and lose it, which would kill the matter legislatively for the year and make it harder to continue the debate into the fall.

"I think the Senate going fast and losing a vote is not a very smart idea," DeLay said. "It's important to be methodical, use regular order."

His aides said later that DeLay is not manipulating the House schedule for partisan purposes. Whatever the motive, however, a slow-down strategy on the constitutional amendment would have the effect of pushing the gay marriage debate deeper into the election season.

That notion angers Democrats. The Senate is "not even close to having votes sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment," Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters yesterday. "I think that there are those who are advocating this legislation, this constitutional amendment, in an effort to polarize and to divide the country in ways that can be very emotional."

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he thinks the amendment cannot pass the House, adding: "I'm convinced it's being used as a wedge issue to attempt to divert attention from the abysmal performance of this administration" in economic and diplomatic areas.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is among the Republicans who see scant prospects for the proposed amendment's passage. "From what I can tell, I don't think there's a two-thirds majority in either house," he said yesterday. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said that until a federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act "is fully challenged, I can't imagine why we would consider a constitutional amendment."

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing yesterday on the revised version of the proposed amendment, which states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

At the hearing, a gay lawmaker asked proponents what they hope to accomplish by banning same-sex marriage.

"All we are saying is, 'Please, can't we in our lives do this?' " said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "When I go home from today's work, and I choose because of my nature to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you? How does that hurt you?"

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who chaired the hearing, said activist judges "have given us no choice: Either we define marriage in the Constitution or they will redefine it for us."



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Inez Tenenbaum has sparked a firestorm among many in the South Carolina homosexual community by supporting President Bush's ammendment

The State, March 28, 2004
Box 1333, Columbia, SC, 29202
(Fax: 803-771-8639 ) (E-Mail: stateeditor@thestate.com )
( http://www.thestate.com/ )

Tenenbaum's gay stance riles many
By Lee Bandy, Staff Writer
Inez Tenenbaum has sparked a firestorm among many in the South Carolina homosexual community by supporting President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
The response to the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate's stand was not pretty.
Some threatened to boycott the Senate race altogether. Others vowed they would not contribute a dime to her campaign. A handful hinted they might engage in dirty tricks.
Repercussions reached all the way to Washington, where two sponsors asked to have their names withdrawn from a Tenenbaum fund-raiser in the nation's capital next month.
Politically, Tenenbaum had no choice but to oppose gay marriage, if she hopes to have any chance in November – when whatever Republican she faces would surely have used the issue against her.
It would have been political suicide for her to have taken the opposite position, experts say.
"Supporting gay marriage is a killer issue in South Carolina," says Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon. "In statewide elections, this state is getting more and more conservative. Anything that would have tainted her with the slightest liberal brush would have hurt her tremendously."
In response to numerous media inquiries about her stance on gay marriages, Tenenbaum released a statement Feb. 25:
"I oppose gay marriage. I believe the word marriage should be reserved for the union between a man and a woman."
She said she would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as such.
Then she added, "I agree with President Bush that issues such as civil union should be decided by each individual state. The people of South Carolina ought to have the right to decide that question for themselves."
By taking the position she did on gay marriage, Tenenbaum has neutralized it as an issue among the all-important swing voters who make up a third of the tally in the general election campaign.
"If you're running as a Democrat in South Carolina, you must disassociate yourself from the national party and run as a South Carolina Democrat," says College of Charleston analyst Bill Moore. "You must stake out a more middle ground."
Politically, it was a smart move for Tenenbaum. While the gay community may not be happy with her stance on marriage, the guess is many homosexuals will hold their noses and vote for her regardless.
"No matter what she says, she still is closer to them ideologically than the Republicans," Huffmon says.
Tige Watts, founder of Campaign Research and Strategy in Columbia, wishes Tenenbaum had adopted a different position on gay marriage. But that's all water over the dam now, he says.
"We do agree on more important things like jobs, health care, education and trade," he notes. "We're more interested in keeping the seat in Democratic hands."
Linda Ketner, president of the gay rights group The Alliance For Full Acceptance in Charleston, contributed $2,000 to the Tenenbaum campaign. She is not happy and says, "I'd like my money back."
But being the loyal Democrat she is, Ketner says she will not actively work against Tenenbaum, whose campaign agrees to honor any requests to return pledges.
"We don't intend to harm any Democrat," she says, "even though they don't act like a Democrat. But we intend to withhold money."
Tenenbaum can survive that.

Is Califronia's Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional? Analysts, citing various state high court rulings, disagree on how the issue is likely to be resolved

Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2004
Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA, 90053
(Fax: 213-237-7679 or 213-237-5319 ) (E-Mail: letters@latimes.com )
( http://www.latimes.com )


By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer
Twenty-five years ago, in one of the first such rulings in the nation, the California Supreme Court decided that the state Constitution protects homosexuals from job discrimination by a public agency.
Eighteen years passed before the U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar ruling that gays could not be singled out for official discrimination because of "animus."
Now, with the issue of same-sex marriage headed for California's courts, gay rights advocates are counting on the state's history of rulings on their side.
The state Supreme Court is expected to decide this summer whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority when he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Many legal analysts expect Newsom to lose that fight.
But the more explosive legal question is whether the state law that limits marriage to "a man and a woman" violates anti-discrimination provisions in the state Constitution. That issue is scheduled to return to a state trial court Thursday, and eventually to reach the California Supreme Court.
In recent years, the state's high court has sided with gay advocates in cases involving insurance for people with HIV, adoptions by gay couples and police stings aimed at gay men looking for sexual partners.
"A long line of precedent shows that it is clear that California's equal protection clause is more extensive" than the protections provided nationally by the U.S. Constitution, said Brad Sears, director of the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA Law School.
But the state Supreme Court also ruled six years ago that the Boy Scouts of America could legally exclude gays. Six of the seven justices who supported that ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, remain on the court.
Some legal scholars who follow the court say they expect to see that more cautious approach prevail when gay marriage reaches the justices.
"I don't see that this court is going to be that different from what they were six years ago," said University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen.
One of the rulings on which advocates of gay marriage plan to rely heavily is a 1948 decision that overturned the state's ban on interracial marriage. That case, Perez vs. Sharp, came nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court rejected similar laws nationwide.
"The legal analysis applied to the interracial marriage case is almost uncannily applicable" to gay marriage, said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
On the other side, lawyers who have challenged same-sex marriages say the 1948 ruling won't help gay advocates.
The interracial marriage ban was motivated by hatred, said Glen Lavy, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups that has challenged San Francisco's same-sex marriages. "In contrast, we have thousands of years of history establishing that marriage is a union of the opposite sexes," he said. "That history did not arise out of prejudice."
Legally, the issue of whether the state's marriage law violates the Constitution has two parts. First, the courts look to see if a law that is being challenged discriminates against an identifiable class of people. Then the question is whether the state has a valid or compelling reason to justify discriminating.
Officials in San Francisco, which began marrying gay couples Feb. 12, argue that California's laws on marriage discriminate on the bases of both gender and sexual orientation. The state has no valid reason for either form of discrimination in its marriage laws, they say.
If the courts were to accept that argument, they would have to rule that gay marriage is not just permitted, but required by the state Constitution – the same decision the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts came to last year.
Opponents of gay marriage say the laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender because marriage law applies to men and women equally.
"The gender argument for same-sex marriage is basically silly," Lavy said.
But the California Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in the interracial marriage case. Back then, the state argued that the ban on mixed-race marriage was not discriminatory because it equally affected both whites and nonwhites.
If the court agrees that current marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender, the state will have to present compelling reasons to justify the discrimination – a very high hurdle. The court in the past has ruled that the state Constitution limits gender discrimination as strictly as racial discrimination.
If the court dismisses the gender challenge, the case will rest on how the court looks at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no question that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
The issue will be how strong a reason the state needs to justify such discrimination.
Federal courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to give the government more leeway in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation than on race or gender.
The legal term is "rational basis" – meaning that "you just have to have some even colorable grounds" to make the distinction valid, said Chapman University Law School professor John Eastman.
McGeorge School of Law professor J. Clark Kelso said foes of gay marriage could persuade the court that there is a rational basis for preferring heterosexual marriage "because it fosters a more stable society and it fosters greater likelihood that children will be adequately supported than any other choice."
But Therese M. Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco and the lead lawyer in the case for gay marriage, said she would argue that there is a strong case for strictly limiting discrimination based on sexual orientation – the same way discrimination based on gender and race is limited.
"I think there is plenty of authority that would give the court at least the basis for serious consideration whether gay men and lesbians should be entitled to that," she said.
Even if the court adopts that more protective standard, opponents of same-sex marriage say, there are reasons that would justify treating gay couples and heterosexual couples differently.
One of the major arguments they plan to make is that research shows a child is most likely to fare best when reared in a home with a mother and a father.
That argument also has echoes of one the court dismissed in 1948. At that time, lawyers for the state said the ban on interracial marriage was needed because the offspring of mixed-race couples would be physically "inferior."
Gay rights lawyers will point to the state's domestic-partners law to persuade the court that the state already is on record as supporting families headed by gay men and lesbians.
The law says it was intended "to further the state's interests in promoting stable and lasting family relationships."
"Expanding the rights and creating responsibilities of registered domestic partners would further California's interests in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises, and would reduce discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Constitution," the law says.
Citing such provisions, UCLA's Sears said the state courts would be "really up against a wall" in searching for a rational basis to deny gays the right to marry.
Those legal arguments do not get resolved in a vacuum, however. Unlike their predecessors, the seven justices who currently sit on the California Supreme Court have been "very reluctant" to get ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court on such cases, Uelmen said.
In particular, Chief Justice George, who is often a swing vote between the more liberal and more conservative factions of the court, prefers to "follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court" rather than be in front of it, Uelmen said.
Then there is a political element. Like the Massachusetts high court, the California Supreme Court has six Republicans and one Democrat. But members of the Massachusetts court are appointed for life. California's justices must appear on the ballot every 12 years, and some legal scholars believe that requirement could make the justices more cautious.
"The Massachusetts court is going to start taking a lot of hits," Uelmen said. "It already has started" with President Bush, he said.
"I think it has a chilling effect when the president refers to arbitrary court decisions and comes close to saying 'lunatic court decisions.' I think that will have a chilling effect on whether other courts would want to put themselves in this corner."
Kelso, too, is skeptical about the chances that gay marriage would prevail.
Despite precedents that might favor the gay-rights side, the California Supreme Court will "find itself on very uncertain, unstable terrain," the law professor said.
"I think they are likely to decide that gay marriage is not required under the California Constitution." he said. "But it is going to be a close case, in my view."

Shooting himself in the foot, Former Newsom opponent questions gay fund-raiser, showing why it is so ahrd for gays to gain political clout

A 'gay' candidate who won about 1% of the vote is compalining that some gays are supporting Mayor Newsom - like we should turn our backs on the Mayor and only support a gay candidate no matter who s/he is running against. This is the type of thinking - and press coverage - that makes gay folk look stupid.


Washington Blade (glbt), March 26, 2004
1408 U Street, NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20009
(E-Mail: forum@washblade.com ) ( http://www.washblade.com )

Former Newsom opponent questions gay fund-raiser, Victory Fund supports heterosexual S.F. mayor who beat two endorsed gay opponents
By Joe Crea
A gay man defeated by Gavin Newsom in last year’s San Francisco mayoral race is questioning why a gay advocacy group dedicated to electing openly gay candidates is helping host a fund-raiser this week for Newsom, who is straight and who defeated three out gay candidates.
The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which works to increase the number of openly gay public officeholders, assisted in staging a fund-raiser this week in D.C. for Newsom, the young San Francisco mayor who made national headlines in February when he ordered the city to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Jim Reid, a building contractor and one of three openly gay candidates in last year’s San Francisco mayoral race, questioned the propriety of the fund-raiser, given the Victory Fund’s mission.
“If I was the only gay candidate running against Newsom, who would [the Victory Fund] support?” asked Reid.
Reid, who was not endorsed by the Victory Fund, received less than one percent of the vote. The Victory Fund did, however, issue joint endorsements of the other gay candidates: Tom Ammiano of the city’s Board of Supervisors and the city treasurer, Susan Leal.
Chuck Wolfe, president of the Victory Fund, said his group did not host the Newsom fund-raiser, scheduled for Thursday, March 25 at the Hotel Monaco, but merely accommodated requests from Newsom officials to help promote the luncheon.
“We are not doing the logistics,” Wolfe said. “We didn’t get the hotel, didn’t set the ticket prices, … all we did was send out an e-mail. This is Gavin Newsom’s event and his people are handling the matter.”
The e-mail in question contained the subject, “Victory Fund Welcomes San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to Washington, D.C.,” and does not indicate at any point that the event was not in fact being staged entirely by the gay rights organization.
Wolfe defends help for mayor
Wolfe said this is not the first time his group has acknowledged “straight allies.”
“The most important thing to note is that this candidate [Newsom] has been helping one of our candidates retire her debt,” said Wolfe, referring to Leal, whose campaign debt, according to officials, is about $100,000.
Bevan Dufty, a gay representative on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who has served as the lead organizer of the Newsom event in D.C., said the money raised at this week’s luncheon will go toward retiring Newsom’s campaign debt, not Leal’s.
Dufty added that Newsom attended a recent breakfast in San Francisco that netted $30,000 toward retiring Leal’s campaign debt. He also said there were several more events planned for Leal, including a breakfast in early April.
Chris Gruwell, a Newsom campaign official, said the mayor’s election debt is $250,000. Officials said that Ammiano has no campaign debt.
Gruwell also said that he had contacted Wolfe about promoting the D.C. luncheon, noting that Newsom could be a potential asset in raising money and awareness for gay candidates around the country.
“Not since John F. Kennedy, I don’t think you’ve seen a politician make such a bold, courageous move for America,” Dufty said. “I think Chuck [Wolfe] saw that and wanted to help us acknowledge that.
“I think it transcends political cycles and boundaries. Newsom let the world see gay and lesbian couples marry. At some point, we will go back to politics as usual and in a few years, if there’s a gay candidate running for mayor, I expect the Victory Fund to endorse him.”
Wolfe did not specify those other occasions when the Victory Fund helped facilitate fund-raisers for straight candidates. Dave DeCicco, the group’s vice president for communications and marketing, did not offer further details by press time.
Richard Kowalewski, co-chair of the Alice B. Toklas LBGT Democratic Club, a California-based gay partisan group, said the club supported Leal in the general election and Newsom in the runoff.
Kowalewski said the Victory Fund’s actions appear to be a “one-time special case” since “some people think Gavin falls into a special category right now considering what he did.”

Gay news from around the world

MELBOURNE HERALD SUN (Australia) An official inquiry is to begin next month into the running of a government-funded sex-change clinic that is facing allegations of negligence and inappropriate treatment of gender-confused patients

MELBOURNE HERALD SUN Suffering for the sake of identity: A catalogue of broken lives is beginning to emerge from a government funded clinic that for 28 years has referred almost one person a fortnight to undergo radical sex change.

DESERET NEWS (Utah; Mormon-owned) Scathing film review: 'Latter Days' offensive to everyone

FORT WAYNE JOURNAL-GAZETTE (Indiana) Gay Fort Wayne couple wed in San Francisco

RECORD JOURNAL (Connecticut) Attorney Mary Bonauto says gay marriage must be allowed

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH Two women here want their marriage recognized legally

THE OBSERVER (London) Gay couples win full rights to 'marriage'; New laws allow partners to share pensions, property; Overhaul follows anger after Nigel Hawthorne's death

THE TIMES-PICAYUNE Editorial about military's hypocritical policy toward gays: Higher stakes, more tolerance

NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE Mayor With a Mission: New Paltz's Jason West

365GAY.COM Maryland Moves Toward Recognizing Gay Couples

CHARLOTTE OBSERVER City manager opposes benefits to same-sex partners of city employees; Charlotte council can overrule

ASSOCIATED PRESS Boston: Gay marriage supporters go door-knocking

NEWSDAY Unitarian minister presides at same-sex marriages in Albany, New York

ITHACA JOURNAL (New York) Gay couples get rejection; State denies marriage license applications; many vow to fight

DR. JOYCE BROTHERS (syndicated) A son reveals he's gay, and a father is angry and heartbroken

CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER 58 gay couples are denied marriage licenses

ASSOCIATED PRESS North Carolina elementary school restricts access to book about gay prince

WOODSTOCK TIMES (New York) Local journalist Jay Blothcer dismissed as New York Times stringer

OPEKA CAPITAL-JOURNAL (Kansas) Gay marriage issue to be resurrected

BOSTON GLOBE Ads are indicative of emotions in marriage debate; Supporters, opponents use biting, unfiltered arguments

Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Is the Black gay man really ready for marriage?

San Francisco Bay View, March 10, 2004
4917 Third Street, San Francisco California 94124
(Fax: 415-671-0316) (E-Mail: editor@sfbayview.com )
( http://www.sfbayview.com )


by K. Godfrey Easter
Recent news accounts pertaining to same-sex marriage would seem to indicate that our nation's leadership appears nervously restless during this holiday season. It's as if being temporarily positioned in the eye of a hurricane. But this political storm of the century will not soon dissipate. That is, not until the legal ability of same-gender-attracted couples throughout America to enjoy benefits similar to those already afforded traditional married couples has come to pass. However, even after that fateful day has finally become a yesterday, one question will remain constantly in my thoughts.
Is the Black gay man really ready for marriage?
According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, mainstream Black America represents perhaps the strongest opposition (63 percent) to legalizing same-sex marriages. Although appalled by the poll's results, no sharp pain filled my chest cavity, no unusual sensation shot down my left arm. Because for most gay and lesbian individuals of African descent, as is also common among most Blacks overall, the opinions of our religious leadership still heavily impact the level of our personal self-esteem, social dignity, ability to self-love and also … the direction of our public vote.
In one hypocritical breath, Black mainstream churches teach that God's love and grace is unconditionally available for everyone. Then while exhaling that same breath, our families, both domestic and religious, are encouraged to continue tossing their gay and lesbian loved ones to the wolves.
Because of the two-faced teachings of our religious leaders and the adverse impact translated into everyday living, many Black S-G-A men are still horrified at the thought of being labeled "gay." Popularly phrased as being "on the down-low," traditionally married, yet nevertheless gay men (many of them religious) prowl through adult Internet chat rooms, then realize their inward intentions via secret rendezvous. Once satisfied, they return home to the social safety net of their wives – now, more likely than ever before, newly HIV positive.
As a Black gay Christian myself, I often see firsthand how we are still written off as social and spiritual misfits because of the few misinterpreted sentences written on sacred stone pads, tailored to yesteryear's culture. As opposed to other progressive American cultures, African America still resides in Jurassic Park when it comes to the fundamental validity of its gay and lesbian community. Therefore, waiting for Black church leadership to validate its own S-G-A population is like waiting on the White House to tell America the real reason we went to war with Iraq.
Consequently, before most Black S-G-A men will be properly suited for marriage, we must, ourselves, deal candidly with that Goliath of a demon called religiosity, passed on to us by the well-intentioned, yet wayward religious teachings of our youth. We must realize that self-honesty and self-respect must be regarded as being far more worthy of securing than being permitted to preach that Sunday morning sermon, directing that choir or singing that song. This might entail uprooting ourselves from traditional family or church environments or other ties that tend to socially, spiritually or psychologically bind, at least until our mainstream brothers and sisters have returned clothed and in their right mind.
One fact is unmistakably obvious. America's Black religious leaders represent the primary hosts spreading homophobia (fear and ignorance) throughout the Black culture like this year's wretched winter flu. And until our nation's Black religious and community leaders are at least willing to seek to understand the fundamentally spiritual and social validity of each S-G-A individual, discussing the legalization of gay marriage with them will be like attempting these days to purchase a home with no money down, while having terrible credit.
We must be willing to fight our own good fight of faith, drawing upon that mustard seed of substance present within our own uniquely blessed community and in each of its gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered inhabitants. Because at the pace mainstream Black America is moving, even once gay and lesbian marriage has been made legal (and trust me – one day it will be), Black S-G-A individuals will still only be recognized by their mainstream religious leaders as legally married, social and spiritual misfits.
• K. Godfrey Easter is a social activist, public speaker and the author of "Love Lifted Me: In Spite Of The Church."

Same-Sex Couples and Ownership

By JAY ROMANO

HILE there have been a number of same-sex couples who have participated in marriage ceremonies across the country, the official legal status of the couples will ultimately have to be sorted out by the courts. Lawyers who specialize in gay and lesbian issues, however, say that with careful planning, such couples can obtain many of the same benefits available to married couples where ownership of real estate is concerned.

At the same time, however, there are some real-estate-related benefits that only married couples enjoy. The most striking involves the amount of the gain that is exempt from taxes in the sale of a property that is owned in the name of only one partner.

"Because the laws of marriage do not yet apply to same-gender couples, a substantial part of my practice is counseling clients on how to use the existing laws to create a framework to protect their relationships and their assets," said Arlene P. Bluth, a Manhattan lawyer who specializes in representing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients.

Ms. Bluth explained that a fundamental issue for unmarried partners to address is the manner in which title to real estate is held.

The most basic form of property ownership by two or more people, Ms. Bluth said, is known as a tenancy in common. This, she said, is basically a partnership in which each partner has the right to possession of the entire property and in which each partner owns either a specified share of the property or a share equal to the other partner or partners. Ms. Bluth explained that unless a deed specifically allocated a certain percentage of ownership to each partner, the partners in a tenancy in common each owned an equal share of the property.

Since an individual's ownership interest is independent from the other owners, however, each owner in a tenancy in common is free to sell or mortgage his or her interest without the consent of the other owner. And when one tenant in common dies, Ms. Bluth said, that individual's interest passes through his or her estate — either by will or in accordance with the laws of intestacy.

Another form of title to real estate, Ms. Bluth said, is known as a tenancy by the entirety. "This form of ownership is only available to persons who are legally married when they acquire the property," she said, adding that while tenancy by the entirety historically applied only to real property — like houses and condominiums — on Jan. 1, 1996, the law in New York was changed to allow co-op apartments to be owned as a tenancy by the entirety.

With this form of ownership, Ms. Bluth said, the spouses do not hold partial ownership interests in the property. "Instead, each spouse owns 100 percent of the property and the right to possess the entire premises, subject to the parallel right of the other spouse," she said. And when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse automatically becomes the sole owner of the property, not because of any right of survivorship, but because he or she has always had a 100 percent ownership interest.

"In essence, upon the death of the first tenant by the entirety, his or her interest in the property merely disappears," Ms. Bluth said, adding that the law makes certain assumptions about how title to property will be held in the absence of a specific election by the parties to hold title in another way.

"The law assumes that a married couple acquiring real property or a co-op apartment take title as tenants by the entirety," she said. "And when unmarried people acquire real property or a co-op apartment, the law assumes that they take title as tenants in common."

There is, however, another way for unmarried people to take title to property: as joint tenants with right of survivorship.

"For those couples who cannot or do not wish to marry, but still have the desire to have title to the property automatically pass to the survivor of them, joint tenancy is the only option," Ms. Bluth said. "However, a joint tenancy is not nearly as stable as a tenancy by the entirety."

She explained that a joint tenancy is not identical to a tenancy by the entirety. "It is more like a tenancy in common with an added automatic right of survivorship of the other joint tenants," Ms. Bluth said. She added, however, that while a tenancy by the entirety could be dissolved only by consent or by a court order — typically in the form of a judgment of divorce — a two-person joint tenancy could be changed into a tenancy in common by one party without the consent of the other.

"All one joint tenant needs to do in order to unilaterally destroy the survivorship interest and convert the joint tenancy to a tenancy in common is to convey away his interest or to execute and record a new deed to himself," Ms. Bluth said. "No consent to the transfer is necessary."

At the same time, neither a joint tenancy nor a tenancy in common provides the same level of protection against creditors as a tenancy by the entirety.

Jack H. Boyajian, a Manhattan lawyer who specializes in collection law, said that if a creditor gets a judgment against a joint- or co-owner, the creditor can ask a court to "partition" the property interests of the owners. Once that is done, the creditor can then force the sale of the debtor's interest, leaving the remaining partner with a stranger as a co-owner.

With a tenancy by the entirety, on the other hand, since each spouse simultaneously owns a 100 percent interest in the property, it is virtually impossible for a creditor to obtain an order for partition.

And without the partition, Mr. Boyajian said, the creditor can only file the judgment on the public record and hope the debt is paid off when the property is sold or refinanced.

Joel E. Miller, a Queens tax lawyer, said that in addition to being able to own property as tenants by the entirety, married couples can also take advantage of a tax break that unmarried couples cannot get.

Mr. Miller explained that under current tax law, property owners can exclude a certain amount of gain on the sale of a principal residence. For married couples filing jointly, he said, up to $500,000 in gain can be exempt from taxes if the property was owned and used as a principal residence for two out of the five years preceding the sale. (Single taxpayers, and married taxpayers filing individually, he said, are entitled to an exclusion of up to $250,000.)

So, Mr. Miller said, if an unmarried couple take title to property as joint tenants or as tenants in common, and both meet the ownership and use requirements, they can each exclude up to $250,000 in gain on their tax returns. Married couples filing individually, of course, can do the same thing.

Different results occur, however, when title to the property is in only one person's name. With a married couple, Mr. Miller said, if the property is in one spouse's name, but the couple file a joint income tax return, the couple are entitled to an exclusion of up to $500,000.

With an unmarried couple, on the other hand, if only one partner is the owner of the property, only that partner can claim an individual exclusion of $250,000.

While it is not possible for unmarried couples to obtain the same tax benefits as a married couple, they can take steps to "fine tune" their financial and ownership arrangements.

Ms. Bluth noted that wills were important for unmarried couples — whether gay or heterosexual — because the laws of intestacy did not provide for "life partners." "Unless people specifically make provisions for their life partners in their wills, not only will their partners be shut out of any assets, but their widowed partners can be shut out of a home, a car, making funeral arrangements and more," she said.

Lucas A. Ferrara, a Manhattan real estate lawyer, said that under the rent laws, a life partner is entitled to basically the same protections as a spouse. Typically, that includes succession rights to the apartment in the event the other life partner leaves the apartment or dies and survivor has used the apartment with the partner as a primary residence for at least two years. At the same time, partners of those who are not protected by the rent laws — that is, deregulated and market-rate tenants — may not enjoy those same protections.

"Most leases provide that a lease agreement is binding on the owner and tenant and their respective lawful successors or assigns," Mr. Ferrara said, adding for regulated tenants, a life partner was typically considered a "lawful successor."

"The same can't be said for occupants of unregulated apartments," he said. "If an occupant is not recognized as a lawful successor, then arguably a survivor's rights to remain in an apartment become significantly murkier."

Gay? No Marriage License Here. Straight? Ditto.

By KATE ZERNIKE

ORVALLIS, Ore., March 26 — Here in the rain-soaked Willamette Valley, wedding season doesn't arrive in earnest until July. But that didn't stop Benton County from jilting everyone at the altar this week.

After first deciding to do what a bunch of other places had done and grant marriage licenses to gay couples, the county commissioners did what apparently no other place has done: they decided not to give marriage licenses to anybody.

"For me this doesn't have to do with gay marriage at all," said Linda Modrell, the chairwoman of the three-member county commission. "It has to do with equal treatment. It would be the same if we had a law that says we couldn't sell property to Japanese or redheaded Danish people. What would we do?"

So while gay couples here are proceeding with the now almost routine rituals of planning weddings that the state does not recognize, straight couples, whose previous worries tended more toward chocolate versus carrot cake, are struggling to figure out a new script.

Since Tuesday, when the ban was announced, they have been calling the Benton County clerk asking if this means they cannot marry at all. (No, get a license in Linn County, 12 miles away.) They have been calling Linn County asking whether it, too, has plans to refuse licenses. (Absolutely not, the clerk there said, describing his Benton County counterparts as "childish.")

Even brides who say they believe in equal rights seem a bit miffed. "It's not a nondiscrimination policy, it's a full-discrimination policy," scoffed Kyrie Cauthorn, who is planning a May 29 wedding.

Here, it is straight couples who are rumbling about lawsuits. And at the Hanson Country Inn, the most popular reception space around, the owner, Patricia Covey, was proclaiming the move cruel to young couples who, like their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents before them, want to go down to the pretty Italianate courthouse in the center of the county seat here and declare themselves husband and wife.

"It's outrageous," Ms. Covey said. "The county commissioners are playing God. I think they're just trying to make a statement. These kids are innocent victims. If they wanted to make gay marriage legal, they should have done it. Instead they've gone about it backwards. It's totally unfair."

Oregon gay rights activists see powerful — and somewhat delicious — symbolism. Elizabeth Oettinger, senior minister at the First Congregational United Church of Christ, said: "It's not altogether bad for a heterosexual couple that has always thought of marriage as an inalienable right to be told no. It might make them think about how same-sex couples get told no all the time."

But the commissioners in this largely rural and largely liberal county, home to Oregon State University, say they were not trying to be cheeky or force the issue. They simply made the only choice they could, they say. Had they granted licenses to gays, they would have violated a state statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; had they continued to grant licenses to straight couples but refused to grant them to gays, they say, they would have been violating the State Constitution's protection of equal rights. But if no one got licenses — at least until the state courts settle the issue, probably within a couple of months — no one could claim discrimination.

This all started a few weeks ago when, with the battle over gay marriage spreading across the country, a gay couple affiliated with the local Quaker congregation called the county clerk and asked if the county would issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex. E-mail messages from other people followed. So the commissioners held a meeting and, after three hours of comment, voted, 2 to 1, to start handing out licenses to gays on Wednesday of this week. (The dissenter, Jay Dixon, said he supported the right of gays to marry but wanted to wait until the state courts ruled.)

County officials prepared for big numbers, at least 100 gay couples a day. They added extra police officers and more people to process applications. They planned to snake yellow tape outside the county courthouse to control the crowds.

"San Francisco and Portland were deluged," said Jill Van Buren, who was acting county clerk while the clerk was off for spring break. "We assumed we'd have quite a crowd."

John Hope-Johnstone, chief executive of Corvallis Tourism, set up a Web site for information on weddings in the county. He called hotels, urging them to put together wedding packages, expecting that, as in other cities that had allowed gay marriage, most applicants would come from out of town. Local churches planned a public wedding reception, catered by a local vegan restaurant, a candy store and a bakery.

Then the Defense of Marriage Coalition and eight local residents filed a lawsuit, and the state attorney general threatened to do the same. The commissioners looked at five legal opinions from their own counsel and others, all suggesting that the statute made gay marriage illegal but that the statute itself was unconstitutional. They voted again, not to allow any licenses at all. ("Which was nice," Ms. Van Buren said, "because I didn't have to go to jail.")

The attorney general applauded the move, and Pflag — Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national group — sent the commissioners a bouquet. Others, however, sent nasty e-mail messages, and are threatening a vote to recall Ms. Modrell, the chairwoman.

The commissioners say there is nothing that requires them to issue marriage licenses. Raymond Cihak, the local lawyer who represents the Defense of Marriage Coalition, disagrees. "Since Oregon was a territory," Mr. Cihak said, "Oregon has licensed heterosexual couples that have a desire to marry. I don't understand why they'd reverse 150 years of history based on one public hearing. It's just embarrassing."

Gay couples, meanwhile, have found themselves in the unusual position of celebrating their being denied a license. "We are still equal if no one else can get a license," Carolyn Bales said.

The public wedding reception planned by local churches, for Friday night, was instead rescheduled as a panel discussion on gay marriage. But Ms. Bales and her partner are still planning a wedding.

So are others. "We've got family coming in," said Mary Bolton, who is to be married to Karen Herold on Sunday.

Heterosexual brides are not so cheery. "If you have an institution that's been around for quite some time, you should be able to keep it," said Lisa Rearrick, who is planning a June 27 wedding. "If you want to add something, fine, you can do that. But you shouldn't have to throw out the old to be able to bring out the new."

The inconvenience of having to get a license in the next county may be small, but the significance to getting one here, some brides said, would be big.

"This is my home," Ms. Cauthorn said. "It wouldn't have occurred to me to go anywhere else."

Rob Mead, the bridegroom, was — predictably? — more relaxed.

"I think it's exciting to be in the middle of all of this," Mr. Mead said, adding that "it sort of reminds me what a big deal it is, the value of the tradition."

"Not that I didn't know that," he added quickly, his eyes darting to his bride-to-be. "But it makes you realize it's a big legal deal, too."

House Dem. leader says she supports same-sex 'marriage'

Mar 25, 2004
By Michael Foust
WASHINGTON (BP)--House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi came out in support of same-sex marriage March 24, becoming the highest-ranking member of either chamber to take that position publicly.

Appearing on FOX News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” Pelosi, D.-Calif., was pressed to give her position on same-sex “marriage.” Her district includes San Francisco, which handed out more than 4,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples against state law before the California Supreme Court told the city to stop.

“Can same-sex couples marry?” Cavuto asked.

“Yes,” Pelosi replied.

Moments later Cavuto asked, “So what the mayor of San Francisco is doing, you would approve of it?”

“Yes,” she said.

Pelosi’s comments are sure to cause grumbling from more moderate and conservative Democrats, who warned against her election when former Minority Leader Richard Gephardt stepped down in 2002. Rep. Harold Ford, D.-Tenn., ran against Pelosi for the minority position, saying she was too far to the left for the party. But Pelosi beat Ford handily.

Pelosi, speaking on FOX News, said she would use her “leadership to defeat” a constitutional marriage amendment backed by President Bush, which would protect the traditional definition of marriage, thus banning same-sex “marriage.”

The amendment would “enshrine discrimination in the Constitution” against homosexuals, she said.

“I don't think they should be discriminated [against] in the Constitution,” she said. “And my goal is to defeat that resolution. And I'm not going to be sidetracked by any other questions about ethics.”

The homosexual-themed magazine Advocate reported that Pelosi’s comments broke “weeks of silence” on the issue.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D.-Mass., recently also came out in support of same-sex “marriage.”

While polling on the issue has been somewhat erratic, a March CBS/New York Times poll showed that 59 percent of Americans favored an amendment -- up four points from the same poll in December.

Kansas Senate kills same-sex marriage amendment

By JOHN L. PETTERSON The Kansas City Star


TOPEKA — After an often emotional marathon debate, the Kansas Senate on Thursday killed a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages.

Senators wrestled with the highly charged House-approved issue for about six hours before finally rejecting it with 16 yes votes and 17 no votes. Six members passed and another was absent.

In the Senate, 27 votes are required to approve a constitutional proposition. Had the proposition been approved by a two-thirds majority in the form adopted by the House, it would have been placed on the November general election ballot.

Even as the last votes were being tallied, opponents of legalized marriages for gays and lesbians pledged to continue their battle in the closing days of the session.

“We'll regroup and look for a different way to approach it,” said Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican who spoke against efforts to weaken the amendment.

The primary opponent of the amendment, Sen. David Adkins, a Leawood Republican, warned, “it ain't over till it's over.”

But Adkins, who held the debate floor for most of the day, added, “We played by the rules; we dispatched the issue, and it's time to move on.”

As the proposal reached the Senate floor, it defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman only.

In addition, it said “no relationship other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be recognized by the state as being entitled to the rights, benefits, privileges and incidents of marriage.”

Sen. Les Donovan, a Wichita Republican, told the Senate that the same-sex marriage ban was too important to be left to the Legislature. He wanted the amendment to advance to a vote of Kansans.

“We're not capable of telling them who can get married,” he said. “Let the people decide.”

Backers of the ban urged other senators to join them in supporting the House's amendment.

“The backbone of society is the nuclear family,” said Ed Pugh, a Republican from Wamego. Sen. Bob Lyon, a Winchester Republican, described marriage as “a divinely ordained institution” and said there was an immediate risk that the state's current law banning same-sex marriages would be challenged.

Wagle told senators: “A lot of people who turn on their TVs believe the sanctity of marriage is being challenged.”

Kansas is one of 34 states with laws in place banning same-sex marriages, but at least 15 of them are seeking additional support by proposing constitutional bans. Four others, Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada, already have constitutional bans.

Senate Majority Leader Lana Oleen, a Manhattan Republican, sponsored an amendment that removed the reference to state recognition of the various benefits of marriage. It passed 21 to 17.

Supporters of the ban said that stripped the substance from the amendment and left the door open to homosexual unions.

“When you look at what's left after the amendment: Nothing,” said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, a Fowler Republican. “The amendment will gut the whole reason for the (original) amendment. The people won't be fooled.”

Supporters of the same-sex marriage ban stressed the importance of the proposition and noted that thousands of Kansas had contacted their legislators by mail and e-mail and had signed petitions urging action.

Oleen said that while many Kansans are convinced the amendment is necessary to protect traditional marriages, Kansas already has sufficient protections.

She said there has been a state law on the books since 1867 that defines marriage as a union between “two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void.”

In addition, she said, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the validity of that law in a unanimous decision in 2002.

During much of the debate, Adkins frequently said gays and lesbians have the right to marry.

“I ask each of you to examine why you are here today,” Adkins said. “Why are we putting a sign outside the clubhouse that says, ‘No homosexuals allowed?'”

The Leawood Republican said Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage was more of a threat to marriage than a committed homosexual couple.

At one point, Huelskamp asked Adkins, “Do you support homosexual marriage in Kansas?”

“Yes,” Adkins replied.

“Homosexual marriage doesn't threaten my marriage…and I don't see why it threatens yours,” he continued.

Multnomah County Chairwoman pilloried, praised on same-sex marriage

While Diane Linn listens to views in a public hearing, 15 state lawmakers ask to intervene in a test case

03/26/04

FRED LEESON

Multnomah County Chairwoman Diane Linn is a tyrant who threatens democratic society.

Multnomah County Chairwoman Diane Linn is a political hero worthy of President Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage."

The county official who opened the door to same-sex marriages faced critics and admirers alike in a public hearing Thursday for the first time since her controversial March 3 decision.

An overflow crowd and increased security packed the Multnomah Building hearing room where 51 speakers poured out their views for and against gay marriage for two hours. More hearings will be held next week.

In the end, commissioners are expected to vote on a resolution that would reaffirm Linn's decision to issue marriage licenses "to all qualified persons regardless of their gender or social orientation."

Linn went into the meeting with the support of three of the other four county commission members, and there was no signal after Thursday's hearing that any of those minds had been changed.

By an informal count, 30 people supported Linn's decision to allow same-sex marriages and 20 voiced disapproval.

Objections ranged from moral disapproval of homosexuality to biblical references to marriage to criticism of Linn's approach of gaining the commission's support privately.

Meanwhile, 15 Republican legislators opposed to same-sex marriage announced Thursday that they will try to intervene in the legal case testing whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry under the Oregon Constitution.

Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, said at a Portland news conference that he filed the motion on behalf of the legislators in an attempt to give them a role in the legal proceeding. In particular, he said the lawmakers think the current parties to the case were wrong to put it on a legal fast-track.

A hearing will be held on the motion this morning. David Fidanque of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, one of the parties in the case, said the ACLU opposed intervention by the legislators.

People who showed up Thursday to support Linn's position said love is a matter of conviction between individuals, and couples of the same sex are entitled to the same benefits in society as heterosexual marriage partners.

"I believe that today we stand in the shadow of giants," said Jennifer Burleton, a self-professed agnostic, who urged the board to remember the separation of church and state in the United States.

Burleton, who took advantage of the administrative change to get married, complimented Linn and Commissioners Lisa Naito, Serena Cruz and Maria Rojo de Steffey for backing Linn's decision.

Tracy Hopkins took a different approach. She said homosexuals engage in an unhealthy lifestyle that can prove deadly from AIDS. "I can't understand why you'd endorse that," she told the board. "Why this is condoned and uplifted is a travesty."

David Stevens, pastor of Central Bible Church, said Linn's decision undermines the family unit that has been "the cornerstone of civil society throughout written history." He said the change could lead to society instability.

Linn's decision to change the county marriage policy without public hearings drew several objections.

Paul Kinnan asked her to apologize and recant. Woody Broadnax, a Portland City Council candidate, asked her to resign. "The foundations of our nation are at stake," said Lea Williams, who described Linn's action as tyrannical. "Do you honestly believe you are endowed with that kind of power?" she asked.

Linn based her decision on two legal opinions suggesting that not allowing same sex marriages would be a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution.

Frank Dixon, co-chairman of Basic Rights Oregon, a gay-rights advocacy group, said Linn acted within her legal authority. "These brave women did not shun their legal and moral duty," he said of Linn and her supporting commissioners.

Dixon said the county's action was worthy of a new chapter for "Profiles in Courage," a book about political figures that helped launch John F. Kennedy to national prominence. "You are my heroes," he said.

Several people testified who used the administrative change to marry. "It was the happiest day of my life," said Mark Johnson, a past president of the Oregon State Bar. He said denial of marital rights to same-sex partners "is illegal, and it's wrong."

Steve Wagenhoffer, who also married under the new interpretation, said Linn made the right decision. "It couldn't have been done in a better way," he said. "The hate-filled testimony today proves that."

Joe D'Allesandro, president of the Portland Oregon Visitors Association, said the new marriage interpretation has brought visitors and business to Portland. He said many gays and lesbians have higher than average incomes, and tourism recruiters target that market.

"There is no question this has had a positive impact," he said, adding that national news media presenting Portland as a "welcoming place" also is good for tourism.

Some opponents of same-sex marriage said those partnerships often turn out to be short term. But several testified Thursday about their long-term relationships, including Nelson L. Jones, who said he had a committed relationship for 41 years.

Jones said that partner died, and he has found another.

"I'm just like you," he said. "I'm not a screaming queer on a float."

Further county hearings are scheduled for 4 to 6 p.m. and 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday and from 10:15 a.m. until noon Thursday. All hearings are at the Multnomah Building, 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd.

Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment Defeated In KY

A constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages was defeated today in the Kentucky House after Republicans staged a dramatic walkout.

The walkout came hours into a contentious debate. In their absence, too few votes were available.

The Republican leader, Representative Jeff Hoover of Jamestown, accused the Democratic majority of an "arrogant abuse of power."

He said that's because they curtailed debate without consideration of GOP filed amendments to the bill.

Republican members then filed out of the House chamber along with a single Democrat - Representative Tom Riner of Louisville, who frequently votes in the minority.

The dissenters assembled for a rally on the Capitol steps with Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher and supporters.

Democrats sat, seemingly stunned. Then some got angry. Representative Gross Lindsay of Henderson said the Republicans "took the coward's way out."

Representative Reggie Meeks of Louisville said he was glad the walkout happened. Meeks said (and these are his words) "Those people who claim to be so holier than thou, it stripped them raw. I'm glad they showed themselves for what they were."

Speaker Jody Richards eventually proceeded with a roll call vote. Sixty votes are required to approve a constitutional amendment. The roll call got to 55-to-10.

At issue was that Democrats had entwined the "gay marriage" issue into a single bill with a second proposed amendment - an amendment to limit the judiciary's power to impose mandates on the General Assembly.

Republicans, who had far more interest in the marriage amendment, said lumping two constitutional amendments together was an act of sabotage. They insisted it would never survive a court challenge.

Republicans had filed amendments to delete the court-related language and limit the measure only to a ban on same-sex marriages.

Before the walkout, the House voted largely along party lines to limit debate and block Republican amendments.

Republicans wanted the marriage amendment to be restored to the version that passed the Senate. The version also would seek to prohibit same-sex unions.

Whether the proposed amendment had actually been killed was unclear. In theory, the House could reconsider its vote on Monday.

Kentucky since 1996 has had a statute prohibiting same-sex marriages. Proponents of the amendment said writing the prohibition into the Kentucky Constitution was the only way to cement it.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Black pastors in Atlanta rally to oppose same-sex 'marriage'

Mar 26, 2004
By Michael Foust
ATLANTA (BP)--Saying they can "no longer remain silent," some 30 black pastors from the Atlanta area have signed a statement condemning comparisons between homosexual rights and civil rights and calling for the passage of a state constitutional marriage amendment.

The letter, signed by some 30 pastors and leaders, was delivered to members of the Georgia General Assembly, where a marriage amendment is stuck in a House committee. The letter provides a stark contrast to actions of black members of the House who led the charge to defeat it the first time in February.

"People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose," the letter reads. "To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong. If you will not vote to defend the sanctity of marriage, you have forfeited your right to serve in our state because you certainly do not represent the people who elected you."

The pastors led a rally March 22 at an Atlanta church in support of a marriage amendment. It failed to pass in February, needing 120 votes but receiving only 117. But about a dozen members either didn't vote or weren't present, and supporters have brought it back up. It reportedly has enough votes for passage this time. It has already passed the Senate.

Bishop William Shields of Hopewell Baptist Church spoke at the March 22 rally.

"I'm not here tonight to discriminate against anyone. I'm here to stand on the Word of God," he said, according to the Associated Press.

In the letter the leaders called the debate over same-sex "marriage" a "defining moment."

"We are facing a defining moment in our nations' history when one of the pillars of our civilization is being shaken," the letter reads. "Monogamous marriage between one woman and one man is being challenged and we can no longer remain silent. In solidarity we raise our voices on behalf of hundreds of thousands in our congregations and on behalf of the next generation.

"We demand that you lay aside your political party lines and defend marriage as historically defined."

Marriage is a "covenant between one man and one woman" and exists for the "procreation of our children," the letter says. Marriage must never be reduced to a "bundle of governmental benefits" for "those who practice a particular lifestyle," it reads.

Same-sex "marriage" should never be compared to civil rights, the letter asserts.

"We utterly reject the notion that same-sex marriage is a civil right," it reads. "For those of us in the African-American community who have fought for over thirty years here in the southeast to secure equal rights based on the fact that we were created by God and carry His image, we will not tolerate the notion that marriage which was also created in the Image of God now be corrupted and undermined.

"God established the rights of all peoples regardless of race or gender, and He has called us as leaders in the city to protect the sanctity of marriage between one woman and one man. To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire Civil Rights Movement."

The legalization of same-sex "marriage" would impact society and would have dire consequences on the next generation, the leaders argue.

"We urge you to support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman," the letter reads. "Rise above the political smoke and journalistic rhetoric. Don't succumb to the easy choice. Do the right thing. We will watch how you vote and our children will feel the effects."
--30--
The complete text of the statement follows:


"We are facing a defining moment in our nations' history when one of the pillars of our civilization is being shaken. Monogamous marriage between one woman and one man is being challenged and we can no longer remain silent. In solidarity we raise our voices on behalf of hundreds of thousands in our congregations and on behalf of the next generation. We demand that you lay aside your political party lines and defend marriage as historically defined.

"Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. It is both a religious and social contract and it has served civilization for over six thousand years as a primary basis for stability, security, health and well-being. We had better not tamper with or redefine this sacred institution.

"How dare you make a matter of such grave magnitude an issue of Democrat or Republican. Neither is this an issue of mere heterosexual or homosexual. As we sit at the 'table of brotherhood,' there is plenty of blame both in the church and in our city to go around. There are many righteousness and justice issues we as Christian leaders have failed to address in the past, and our city is the worst due to our neglect. It is now time, however, for us to rise up with one voice and confront a matter of foundational importance to every race, every religion and every political interest in our city.

"Marriage as an institution exists for the protection of our children. You must never allow marriage to be reduced to a bundle of governmental benefits for those who practice a particular lifestyle. Sociological studies have demonstrated that children excel in the home environment of one man and one woman. To undermine this principle is at best a social experiment that caters to the desires of a few adults while risking the interests of innocent children. At worst it could destroy an essential element in our culture.

"We utterly reject the notion that same-sex marriage is a civil right. For those of us in the African-American community who have fought for over thirty years here in the southeast to secure equal rights based on the fact that we were created by God and carry His image, we will not tolerate the notion that marriage which was also created in the Image of God now be corrupted and undermined.

"God established the rights of all peoples regardless of race or gender, and He has called us as leaders in the city to protect the sanctity of marriage between one woman and one man. To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire Civil Rights Movement. As our respected fallen leader, Dr. King once said, 'I have a dream, that my four children will one day live in a country where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' This is a character issue where we cannot tolerate compromise.

"This is neither a hate nor a fear issue. While many of us certainly hold to strict moral views related to homosexual behavior, we are not calling for governmental policing of people's personal sexual preference or lifestyle. People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong. If you will not vote to defend the sanctity of marriage, you have forfeited your right to serve in our state because you certainly do not represent the people who elected you.

"We, hereby, call you to be strong and courageous as you give priority to this matter and do all that is in your power to lead the cause of historic marriage. We urge you to support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. Rise above the political smoke and journalistic rhetoric. Don't succumb to the easy choice. Do the right thing. We will watch how you vote and our children will feel the effects."

Massachusetts governor denies same-sex marriage training scheduled

(03-26) 14:56 PST BOSTON (AP) -- Gov. Mitt Romney distanced himself Friday from reports that the administration had scheduled specific training for city clerks in anticipation of same-sex marriages in May.

Town and city clerks said this week that they had been notified that they will be trained in early May for the issuance of marriage licenses for gay couples, scheduled to begin May 17, but they were given few details about what the training will entail.

Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, denied that any training was scheduled.

"It's very possible that various agencies in state government are making preparations, but as to what would be taught or what would be provided to people -- I don't think we know what that answer is until we end up hearing from the Legislature," he said.

Massachusetts' highest court has ruled that same-sex marriages must be allowed under the current state constitution.

Linda E. Hutchenrider, clerk of the town of Barnstable and president of the Massachusetts Towns Clerks' Association, said the state's Registry of Vital Records and Statistics told her that the training would be in early May, but she was given no specifics.

Stanley E. Nyberg, registrar of vital records, confirmed that the training was scheduled, The Boston Globe reported. Nyberg did not return calls for comment Friday.

The clerks' association had written to members of the administration and legislative leaders in February, seeking clarification on how they should handle marriage licenses for gay couples, should a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court go into effect in May.

Romney declined to comment Friday on whether he will ask the court to stay its decision. In the past, administration officials have said that no decisions will be made until after the Legislature acts on a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Clerks in many Massachusetts communities have received inquiries from gay couples and say they need guidance on how to handle the requests.

The prospect of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples presents some logistical challenges for clerks. For instance, the current form includes entries for "husband" and "wife."

Hutchenrider said state officials are preparing forms with gender-neutral language for same-sex couples who request marriage licenses. They are scheduled to be available by May 17.

Another bureaucratic challenge involves a 1913 state law that prohibits clerks from issuing marriage licenses to couples whose marriage would be illegal in their home state. Thirty-eight states have "defense of marriage" laws that prohibit gay marriages.

"The state has an obligation to make this process as orderly for people as possible," said Mary Bonauto, the attorney who represented seven gay couples whose lawsuit led to the court decision to allow same-sex marriage. "Certainly some folks are looking forward to getting married a great deal, and you'd hate to have it ruined in any way because of paperwork."

©2004 Associated Press


Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

SAN FRANCISCO: State tells court city went too far on marriages

Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the state Supreme Court on Thursday to rule that San Francisco officials invaded the province of the Legislature and the courts by authorizing same-sex marriages.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and the city clerk "do not have the power to determine the constitutionality of state statutes, nor do they have the power to enact a new system of marriage in California,'' Lockyer said in written arguments to the court, which is preparing to review the legality of the city's action.

The court ordered a halt to same-sex weddings in City Hall on March 12, after more than 4,000 gay and lesbian couples had exchanged vows in the previous month. Newsom had ordered the clerk to issue the marriage licenses, saying he considered the state law, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, unconstitutional.

The justices said they would not decide the constitutionality of the marriage law, but instead would consider whether Newsom had violated a state constitutional provision requiring administrative agencies to follow state laws until a state appellate court declares a law unconstitutional.

The city filed arguments last week saying the constitutional restriction applied only to state agencies, not local governments, and should not be interpreted to interfere with the mayor's sworn duty to abide by the Constitution. The court will hear the case in late May or early June and rule within 90 days of the hearing.

Lockyer argued Thursday that the city, in issuing marriage licenses, was acting "as an arm of the state'' and was bound by the same restrictions as state agencies.

Lockyer, a self-described advocate of gay rights, continued his cautious approach to the case, declaring it was "not a litmus test on marriage or social values.''

A more strongly worded brief was filed Thursday by private organizations opposing same-sex marriage. Their attorneys, from the Alliance Defense Fund, accused San Francisco officials of adopting "a radical interpretation of the current state of the law promoted by special interest groups'' and said the city's position would lead to chaos.

If mayors could enforce laws according to their beliefs, the lawyers said, they could choose to outlaw abortion, ignore environmental laws or issue gun permits to all applicants within their borders.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle |


Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

A More Perfect Union: How the Founding Fathers would have handled gay marriage

 
Atlantic Monthly, April 2004
(E-Mail:  letters@theatlantic.com )
( http://www.theatlantic.com/ )

A More Perfect Union
How the Founding Fathers would have handled gay marriage
by Jonathan Rauch
        Last November the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that excluding gay couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.  The court gave the legislature six months – until May – to do something about it.  Some legislators mounted efforts to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but as of this writing they have failed (and even if passed, a ban would not take effect until at least 2006).  With unexpected urgency the country faces the possibility that marriage licenses might soon be issued to homosexual couples.  To hear the opposing sides talk, a national culture war is unavoidable.
        But same-sex marriage neither must nor should be treated as an all-or-nothing national decision.  Instead individual states should be left to try gay marriage if and when they choose – no national ban, no national mandate.  Not only would a decentralized approach be in keeping with the country's most venerable legal traditions; it would also improve, in three ways, the odds of making same-sex marriage work for gay and straight Americans alike.
        First, it would give the whole country a chance to learn.  Nothing terrible – in fact, nothing even noticeable – seems to have happened to marriage since Vermont began allowing gay civil unions, in 2000.  But civil unions are not marriages.  The only way to find out what would happen if same-sex couples got marriage certificates is to let some of us do it.  Turning marriage into a nationwide experiment might be rash, but trying it in a few states would provide test cases on a smaller scale.  Would the divorce rate rise?  Would the marriage rate fall?  We should get some indications before long.  Moreover, states are, as the saying goes, the laboratories of democracy.  One state might opt for straightforward legalization.  Another might add some special provisions (for instance, regarding child custody or adoption).  A third might combine same-sex marriage with counseling or other assistance (not out of line with a growing movement to offer social-service support to so-called fragile families).  Variety would help answer some important questions:  Where would gay marriage work best?  What kind of community support would it need?  What would be the avoidable pitfalls?  Either to forbid same-sex marriage nationwide or to legalize it nationwide would be to throw away a wealth of potential information.
        Just as important is the social benefit of letting the states find their own way.  Law is only part of what gives marriage its binding power; community support and social expectations are just as important.  In a community that looked on same-sex marriage with bafflement or hostility, a gay couple's marriage certificate, while providing legal benefits, would confer no social support from the heterosexual majority.  Both the couple and the community would be shortchanged.  Letting states choose gay marriage wouldn't guarantee that everyone in the state recognized such marriages as legitimate, but it would pretty well ensure that gay married couples could find some communities in their state that did.
        Finally, the political benefit of a state-by-state approach is not to be underestimated.  This is the benefit of avoiding a national culture war.
        The United States is not (thank goodness) a culturally homogeneous country.  It consists of many distinct moral communities.  On certain social issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, people don't agree and probably never will – and the signal political advantage of the federalist system is that they don't have to.  Individuals and groups who find the values or laws of one state obnoxious have the right to live somewhere else.
        The nationalization of abortion policy in the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision created a textbook example of what can happen when this federalist principle is ignored.  If the Supreme Court had not stepped in, abortion would today be legal in most states but not all; pro-lifers would have the comfort of knowing they could live in a state whose law was compatible with their views.  Instead of endlessly confronting a cultural schism that affects every Supreme Court nomination, we would see occasional local flare-ups in state legislatures or courtrooms.
        America is a stronger country for the moral diversity that federalism uniquely allows.  Moral law and family law govern the most intimate and, often, the most controversial spheres of life.  For the sake of domestic tranquillity, domestic law is best left to a level of government that is close to home.
        So well suited is the federalist system to the gay-marriage issue that it might almost have been set up to handle it.  In a new land whose citizens followed different religious traditions, it would have made no sense to centralize marriage or family law.  And so marriage has been the domain of local law not just since the days of the Founders but since Colonial times, before the states were states.  To my knowledge, the federal government has overruled the states on marriage only twice.  The first time was when it required Utah to ban polygamy as a condition for joining the Union – and note that this ruling was issued before Utah became a state.  The second time was in 1967, when the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, struck down sixteen states' bans on interracial marriage.  Here the Court said not that marriage should be defined by the federal government but only that states could not define marriage in ways that violated core constitutional rights.  On the one occasion when Congress directly addressed same-sex marriage, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, it decreed that the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriages but took care not to impose that rule on the states.
        Marriage laws (and, of course, divorce laws) continue to be established by the states.  They differ on many points, from age of consent to who may marry whom.  In Arizona, for example, first cousins are allowed to marry only if both are sixty-five or older or the couple can prove to a judge "that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce."  (So much for the idea that marriage is about procreation.)  Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, the Constitution does not require states to recognize one another's marriages.  The Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section 1) does require states to honor one another's public acts and judgments.  But in 1939 and again in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that the clause does not compel a state "to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate."  Dale Carpenter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, notes that the Full Faith and Credit clause "has never been interpreted to mean that every state must recognize every marriage performed in every other state."  He writes, "Each state may refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another state if that marriage would violate the state's public policy."  If Delaware, for example, decided to lower its age of consent to ten, no other state would be required to regard a ten-year-old as legally married.  The public-policy exception, as it is called, is only common sense.  If each state could legislate for all the rest, American-style federalism would be at an end.
        Why, then, do the states all recognize one another's marriages?  Because they choose to.  Before the gay-marriage controversy arose, the country enjoyed a general consensus on the terms of marriage.  Interstate differences were so small that states saw no need to split hairs, and mutual recognition was a big convenience.  The issue of gay marriage, of course, changes the picture, by asking states to reconsider an accepted boundary of marriage.  This is just the sort of controversy in which the Founders imagined that individual states could and often should go their separate ways.
        Paradoxically, the gay left and the antigay right have found themselves working together against the center.  They agree on little else, but where marriage is concerned, they both want the federal government to take over.
        To many gay people, anything less than nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage seems both unjust and impractical.  "Wait a minute," a gay person might protest.  "How is this supposed to work?  I get married in Maryland (say), but every time I cross the border into Virginia during my morning commute, I'm single?  Am I married or not?  Portability is one of the things that make marriage different from civil union.  If it isn't portable, it isn't really marriage; it's second-class citizenship.  Obviously, as soon as same-sex marriage is approved in any one state, we're going to sue in federal court to have it recognized in all the others."
        "Exactly!" a conservative might reply.  "Gay activists have no intention of settling for marriage in just one or two states.  They will keep suing until they find some activist federal judge – and there are plenty – who agrees with them.  Public-policy exception and Defense of Marriage Act notwithstanding, the courts, not least the Supreme Court, do as they please, and lately they have signed on to the gay cultural agenda.  Besides, deciding on a state-by-state basis is impractical; the gay activists are right about that.  The sheer inconvenience of dealing with couples who went in and out of matrimony every time they crossed state lines would drive states to the lowest common denominator, and gay marriages would wind up being recognized everywhere."
        Neither of the arguments I have just sketched is without merit.  But both sides are asking the country to presume that the Founders were wrong and to foreclose the possibility that seems the most likely to succeed.  Both sides want something life doesn't usually offer – a guarantee.  Gay-marriage supporters want a guarantee of full legal equality, and gay-marriage opponents want a guarantee that same-sex marriage will never happen at all.  I can't offer any guarantees.  But I can offer some reassurance.
        Is a state-by-state approach impractical and unsustainable?  Possibly, but the time to deal with any problems is if and when they arise.  Going in, there is no reason to expect any great difficulty.  There are many precedents for state-by-state action.  The country currently operates under a tangle of different state banking laws.  As any banker will tell you, the lack of uniformity has made interstate banking more difficult.  But we do have interstate banks.  Bankers long ago got used to meeting different requirements in different states.  Similarly, car manufacturers have had to deal with zero-emission rules in California and a few other states.  Contract law, property law, and criminal law all vary significantly from state to state.  Variety is the point of federalism.  Uniform national policies may be convenient, but they risk sticking us with the same wrong approach everywhere.
        My guess is that if one or two states allowed gay marriage, a confusing transitional period, while state courts and legislatures worked out what to do, would quickly lead in all but a few places to routines that everyone would soon take for granted.  If New Jersey adopted gay marriage, for instance, New York would have a number of options.  It might refuse to recognize the marriages.  It might recognize them.  It might honor only certain aspects of them – say, medical power of attorney, or inheritance and tenancy rights.  A state with a civil-union or domestic-partner law might automatically confer that law's benefits on any gay couple who got married in New Jersey.  My fairly confident expectation is that initially most states would reject out-of-state gay marriages (as, indeed, most states have pre-emptively done), but a handful would fully accept them, and others would choose an intermediate option.
        For married gay couples, this variation would be a real nuisance.  If my partner and I got married in Maryland, we would need to be aware of differences in marriage laws and make arrangements – medical power of attorney, a will, and so on – for whenever we were out of state.  Pesky and, yes, unfair (or at least unequal).  And outside Maryland the line between being married and not being married would be blurred.  In Virginia, people who saw my wedding band would be unsure whether I was "really married" or just "Maryland married."
        Even so, people in Virginia who learned that I was "Maryland married" would know I had made the strongest possible commitment in my home state, and thus in the eyes of my community and its law.  They would know I had gone beyond cohabitation or even domestic partnership.  As a Jew, I may not recognize the spiritual authority of a Catholic priest, but I do recognize and respect the special commitment he has made to his faith and his community.  In much the same way, even out-of-state gay marriages would command a significant degree of respect.
        If you are starving, one or two slices of bread may not be as good as a loaf – but it is far better than no bread at all.  The damage that exclusion from marriage has done to gay lives and gay culture comes not just from being unable to marry right now and right here but from knowing the law forbids us ever to marry at all.  The first time a state adopted same-sex marriage, gay life would change forever.  The full benefits would come only when same-sex marriage was legal everywhere.  But gay people's lives would improve with the first state's announcement that in this community, marriage is open to everyone.
        Building consensus takes time.  The nationwide imposition of same-sex marriage by a federal court might discredit both gay marriage and the courts, and the public rancor it unleashed might be at least as intense as that surrounding abortion.  My confidence in the public's decency and in its unfailing, if sometimes slow-acting, commitment to liberal principles is robust.  For me personally, the pace set by a state-by-state approach would be too slow.  It would be far from ideal.  But it would be something much more important than ideal:  it would be right.
        Would a state-by-state approach inevitably lead to a nationwide court mandate anyway?  Many conservatives fear that the answer is yes, and they want a federal constitutional amendment to head off the courts – an amendment banning gay marriage nationwide.  These days it is a fact of life that someone will sue over anything, that some court will hear any lawsuit, and that there is no telling what a court might do.  Still, I think that conservatives' fears on this score are unfounded.
        Remember, all precedent leaves marriage to the states.  All precedent supports the public-policy exception.  The Constitution gives Congress a voice in determining which of one another's laws states must recognize, and Congress has spoken clearly:  the Defense of Marriage Act explicitly decrees that no state must recognize any other state's same-sex marriages.  In order to mandate interstate recognition of gay marriages, a court would thus need to burn through three different firewalls – a tall order, even for an activist court.  The current Supreme Court, moreover, has proved particularly fierce in resisting federal incursions into states' rights.  We typically reserve constitutional prohibitions for imminent threats to liberty, justice, or popular sovereignty.  If we are going to get into the business of constitutionally banning anything that someone imagines the Supreme Court might one day mandate, we will need a Constitution the size of the Manhattan phone book.
        Social conservatives have lost one cultural battle after another in the past five decades: over divorce, abortion, pornography, gambling, school prayer, homosexuality.  They have seen that every federal takeover of state and local powers comes with strings attached.  They have learned all too well the power of centralization to marginalize moral dissenters-including religious ones.  And yet they are willing to risk federal intervention in matrimony.  Why?
        Not, I suspect, because they fear gay marriage would fail.  Rather, because they fear it would succeed.
        One of the conservative arguments against gay marriage is particularly revealing:  the contention that even if federal courts don't decide the matter on a national level, convenience will cause gay marriage to spread from state to state.  As noted, I don't believe questions of convenience would force the issue either way.  But let me make a deeper point here.
        States recognized one another's divorce reforms in the 1960s and 1970s without giving the matter much thought (which was too bad).  But the likelihood that they would recognize another state's same-sex marriages without serious debate is just about zero, especially at first:  the issue is simply too controversial.  As time went on, states without gay marriage might get used to the idea.  They might begin to wave through other states' same-sex marriages as a convenience for all concerned.  If that happened, however, it could only be because gay marriage had not turned out to be a disaster.  It might even be because gay marriage was working pretty well.  This would not be contagion.  It would be evolution – a sensible response to a successful experiment.  Try something here or there.  If it works, let it spread.  If it fails, let it fade.
        The opponents of gay marriage want to prevent the experiment altogether.  If you care about finding the best way forward for gay people and for society in a changing world, that posture is hard to justify.  One rationale goes something like this:  "Gay marriage is so certain to be a calamity that even the smallest trial anywhere should be banned."  To me, that line of argument smacks more of hysteria than of rational thought.  In the 1980s and early 1990s some liberals were sure that reforming the welfare system to emphasize work would put millions of children out on the street.  Even trying welfare reform, they said, was irresponsible.  Fortunately, the states didn't listen.  They experimented – responsibly.  The results were positive enough to spark a successful national reform.
        Another objection cites not certain catastrophe but insidious decay.  A conservative once said to me, "Changes in complicated institutions like marriage take years to work their way through society.  They are often subtle.  Social scientists will argue until the cows come home about the positive and negative effects of gay marriage.  So states might adopt it before they fully understood the harm it did."
        Actually, you can usually tell pretty quickly what effects a major policy change is having – at least you can get a general idea.  States knew quite soon that welfare reforms were working better than the old program.  That's why the idea caught on.  If same-sex marriage is going to cause problems, some of them should be apparent within a few years of its legalization.
        And notice how the terms of the discussion have shifted.  Now the anticipated problem is not sudden, catastrophic social harm but subtle, slow damage.  Well, there might be subtle and slow social benefits, too.  But more important, there would be one large and immediate benefit: the benefit for gay people of being able to get married.  If we are going to exclude a segment of the population from arguably the most important of all civic institutions, we need to be certain that the group's participation would cause severe disruptions.  If we are going to put the burden on gay people to prove that same-sex marriage would never cause even any minor difficulty, then we are assuming that any cost to heterosexuals, however small, outweighs every benefit to homosexuals, however large.  That gay people's welfare counts should, of course, be obvious and inarguable; but to some it is not.
        I expect same-sex marriage to have many subtle ramifications – many of them good not just for gay people but for marriage.  Same-sex marriage would dramatically reaffirm the country's preference for marriage as the gold standard for committed relationships.  Of course there might be harmful and neutral effects as well.  I don't expect that social science would be able to sort them all out.  But the fact that the world is complicated is the very reason to run the experiment.  We can never know for sure what the effects of any public policy will be, so we conduct a limited experiment if possible, and then decide how to proceed on the basis of necessarily imperfect information.
        If conservatives genuinely oppose same-sex marriage because they fear it would harm straight marriage, they should be willing to let states that want to try gay marriage do so.  If, on the other hand, conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they believe that it is immoral and wrong by definition, fine – but let them have the honesty to acknowledge that they are not fighting for the good of marriage so much as they are using marriage as a weapon in their fight against gays.

According to Yahoo, this blog is one of the top ten WEB RESULTS out of about 42,500,000 sites for a search on the word 'gay.' That is pretty amazing. Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Now Portland Is Gay-Marriage Capital

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A03


PORTLAND, Ore., March 18 -- The wind blew hard off the Willamette River, and the sky said rain for sure when Billy Beaird and George Palu drove in from Seattle this morning to get married.

The couple brought no witnesses, made the three-hour drive wearing their Saturday casual clothes and filled out the most important application of their lives on a folding table in the lobby of the square, brick Multnomah County building. Still, this was their wedding day.

"I'm feeling nervous," said Palu, who was filling out the marriage license application with furrowed intensity. He fumbled with his pen. "I'm anxious."

Palu, who is 32 and works in sales, and Beaird, 33, a loan officer, have been together 3 1/2 years. It was not their commitment they were worried about, but Multnomah County's. Would the county, which followed San Francisco's lead and began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples March 3, also follow San Francisco and abruptly halt the marriages? And if so, when?

"We feel rushed," Beaird said, "and it's a little bit upsetting that we have to rush our special day."

If Multnomah County commissioners have their way, the county will never stop offering licenses to gay couples. Although state Attorney General Hardy Myers has said that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is consistent with state law, he also said the state law likely violates the Oregon constitution.

And that, Multnomah County board Chairwoman Diane Linn said the other day, means that the county must continue to issue the licenses or face costly discrimination lawsuits.

So for at least this week, Portland is the place to go for marriage-minded gay couples. Attorneys general in California and New York successfully sought injunctions stopping gay marriages in San Francisco and the village of New Paltz. In New Jersey, the attorney general warned local officials could face criminal charges for issuing marriage licenses to gay couples after Asbury Park's deputy mayor officiated at several same-sex weddings. But the attorney general here has not acted beyond making a joint statement on Wednesday with Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, which said they were weighing their legal options.

But there are other legal challenges underway. A newly formed group, the Defense of Marriage Coalition, made up primarily of Portland-area ministers, went to court earlier this month to challenge the gay unions and to request a temporary restraining order on the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A Multnomah County judge denied the motion last week, but the coalition is not deterred. Thursday, it filed suit to try to stop Benton County, in northern Oregon, from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which the county plans to do beginning Wednesday.

The coalition is also beginning the involved process of trying to put a statewide initiative on the November ballot that would ban same-sex marriages, following similar efforts underway in 14 other states.

Other gay weddings are springing up here and there, as they did in New York on Thursday, when a rabbi and minister officiated at the marriages of three couples on the steps of City Hall. The ceremonies were intended to show support for two Unitarian Universalist ministers who were criminally charged by the prosecutor in Ulster County, N.Y., for officiating at gay marriages.

But for now, Portland is the nation's gay-marriage capital. Kathy Tuneberg, the tax collection and records manager for Multnomah County, who is also in charge of issuing marriage licenses, said that as of Thursday afternoon, her office had issued 2,350 licenses to same-sex couples since it began March 3. "We've done a third of what we would normally do in a year in seven days," Tuneberg said. "And while we don't keep track of this, we've gotten calls from couples from all over the country -- Florida, New York -- and now, California."

When San Francisco became the first city in the country to issue marriage licenses to gay couples beginning Feb. 12, it inflamed the debate on same-sex weddings to the point where President Bush declared his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Couples lined up around the block, television cameras filmed weddings all over City Hall, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom became a hero to those who support same-sex marriage and a villain to those against it.

Portland's wedding scene has been more low-key. Multnomah County issues the licenses but does not provide officiators to marry couples. Instead, it provides a list of judges who will perform the ceremonies by appointment. Some days, with the aid of gay rights organizations such as Basic Rights Oregon, gay couples have been bused to assembly halls, where judges or ministers have married couples in assembly-line fashion. On Wednesday, three ministers stood outside the county building at the ready. But Thursday, couples had no one to marry them if they had not made an appointment.

Palu and Beaird had a 4:30 p.m. appointment with a judge and four hours to kill. "What will we do now?" Beaird asked Jerry Freedman, a volunteer with Basic Rights Oregon who has been helping couples with applications and wedding appointments.

"Couples are so nervous," said Freedman, after the pair stepped into the rain. Swept away by the marriage fervor, Freedman married his partner of 30 years two weeks ago.

"People are literally crying when they get their licenses," he said. "It's wonderful, even if no one is sure if it will go on."

Special correspondent Michelle Garcia contributed to this report from New York.



According to Yahoo, this blog is one of the top ten WEB RESULTS out of about 42,500,000 sites for a search on the word 'gay.' That is pretty amazing. Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Tennessee county beats hasty retreat from call to ban homosexuals

(03-18) 17:50 PST DAYTON, Tenn. (AP) -- The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution Thursday reversed its call to ban homosexuals.

Rhea County commissioners took about three minutes to retreat from a request to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature. The Tuesday measure passed 8-0.

County attorney Gary Fritts said the initial vote triggered a "wildfire" of reaction. "I've never seen nothing like this," he said Thursday.

But Fritts said it was all a misunderstanding.

"They wanted to send a message to our (state) representative and senator that Rhea County supports the ban on same-sex marriage," he said. "Same-sex marriage is what it was all about. It was to stop people from coming here and getting married and living in Rhea County."

Not that the issue of banning homosexuals didn't arise.

"I'm not saying it wasn't discussed," Fritts said. "Sometimes you had five or six people talking."

Fritts said he advised the commissioners they cannot ban homosexuals or make them subject to criminal charges. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 struck down Texas' sodomy laws as a violation of adults' privacy.

Fritts said he doesn't believe the issue will come up again.

"I think they got all the publicity they need about it," he said.

Social worker Esther Jackson, 24 -- one of 300 people who attended Thursday's meeting -- held a sign reading: "Breed Love, Not Hate."

"It's just ignorance is all," she said of Tuesday's vote.

But 12-year-old Caitlin Kinney, attending the meeting with her mother, said she supported the commissioners' initial vote.

"I think they should go further, try to see if they can ban them," she said. "It's not a Christian thing."

The politically conservative county holds an annual festival commemorating the 1925 trial at which high school teacher John T. Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution. The verdict was reversed on a technicality, and the trial became the subject of the play and movie "Inherit the Wind."

©2004 Associated Press

San Francisco asked justices to resume gay marriages

City officials here asked the California Supreme Court on Thursday to allow the resumption of gay marriages.

The request by City Attorney Dennis Herrera came a week after the seven high court justices stopped the marriages until the court decides whether Mayor Gavin Newsom and his administration had the power to defy state law and issue same-sex marriage licenses to more than 4,000 gay couples since Feb. 12.

The court, responding to petitions by a conservative group and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, announced last week it would decide only whether Newsom had the authority to declare the Family Code -- which says marriage is a union between a man and woman -- was unconstitutional and issue same-sex marriage licenses.

California voters in 2000 also approved a measure defining marriage between one man, one woman.

The justices said they would not immediately decide whether barring gay marriages would violate California's Constitution, as Newsom alleges. Massachusetts' high court ruled in November that that state's constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. Lawmakers there have moved to amend their constitution to bar a same-sex marriage.

Herrera, in briefs to the Supreme Court submitted Thursday, also argued that the justices should not decide on Newsom's power until the courts decide the constitutional issue, which could be years away. Last week, the city and same-sex couples that were denied gay marriage licenses sued in the lower courts, alleging California's Constitution permits gay marriage.

The California Supreme Court, in its order last week, suggested it would not decide the broad constitutional issue until it matriculated through the lower courts, a process that could take a year or more.

San Francisco "should be allowed to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the time it takes to resolve the constitutional questions in the lower courts," Herrera told the justices in court briefs Thursday.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is seeking to keep marriage between a man and woman, quipped about San Francisco's brief to the justices: "Let's allow the city to disregard democracy and the rule of law in order to give the city time to attempt to pass their social agenda?"

The alliance is scheduled to submit briefs to the justices March 25.

The court is expected to hold a hearing on the issue in May or June.

The cases are Lewis v. Alfaro, S122865 and Lockyer v. San Francisco, S122923.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for a decade.
©2004 Associated Press


According to Yahoo, this blog is one of the top ten WEB RESULTS out of about 42,500,000 sites for a search on the word 'gay.' That is pretty amazing. Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Gay news

1. ASSOCIATED PRESS North Carolina: The parents of a first-grader are fuming a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince
2. SEATTLE TIMES Lesbian minister's trial bares painful rift in church
3. KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL (Tennessee) Gay-union bill scrutinized; Debate in state House committee over civil pacts becomes uncivil at times
4. DES MOINES REGISTER Mark Hansen: Marriage moves to forefront, no matter the definition
5. SIOUX CITY JOURNAL (Iowa) Editorial: Woodbury County Board of Supervisors strengthens policy against discrimination

Associated Press, March 18, 2004
Parents of N.C. Girl Upset by School Book
WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) – The parents of a first-grader are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.
Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Tonya, couldn't believe it when Prince Bertie, the leading character in "King & King," waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.
The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.
"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."
The 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.
The publisher's Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.
Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, said the book has been on the library's shelves since early last year.
"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal.
Hawley said she couldn't comment on the book because she hadn't seen it. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marriage.
The Hartsells said they are keeping the book until they get assurances it won't be circulated. But Hawley said all county schools have a committee that reviews books after their appropriateness is questioned, and the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the book for review.
The Hartsells said they intend to file such a complaint and are considering transferring their daughter.
• On the Net: Tricycle Press: http://www.tenspeed.com/catalog/tricycle/


Seattle Times, March 18, 2004
P. O. Box 70, Seattle, WA, 98111
(Fax: 206-382-6760 ) (E-Mail: opinion@seattletimes.com )
( http://www.seattletimes.com )
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001882037_methodists18m.html
Gay minister's trial bares painful rift in church
By Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter
Acknowledging that the United Methodist Church is "painfully divided" over issues of homosexuality, Bishop William Boyd Grove yesterday convened a rare public church trial in the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann, who could be stripped of her ministry for being in an openly gay relationship.
The trial – which continues today – is drawing hundreds to Bothell United Methodist Church, where several dozen Dammann supporters were arrested by Bothell police yesterday for trying to block the entrance to the church. The arrests were peaceful, as were the demonstrations.
Grove, a retired West Virginia bishop who is serving as trial judge, lit a candle to start the proceedings, saying it symbolized that "we are together as the gathered church ... the same church that worships ... the same church that is so bitterly and painfully divided."
The third-largest faith group in the United States – after Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists – the United Methodist Church has an estimated membership of between eight and 10 million.
Dammann, who has served as pastor in Seattle and Ellensburg, is charged with "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching." She has pleaded not guilty of the charge.
Church trial is a rare proceeding – in the Pacific Northwest, there has been only one in the past 20 years. And while a few Methodist clergy have been tried for holding ceremonies blessing same-gender unions, the last church trial of an openly gay clergy member was most likely in 1987, when Rose Mary Denman of New Hampshire was stripped of her ministry.
Dammann's trial has become symbolic – both for those who believe current church laws and teachings on homosexuality are unjust, and for those who worry that church law is being disregarded at the expense of personal beliefs.
That division was also reflected in opening statements yesterday, which began after a closed jury selection that took most of the day. The 13 jurors are Methodist clergy members from the Pacific Northwest.
The Rev. James Finkbeiner, arguing on behalf of the church, framed his argument narrowly, saying the case is simply to determine whether Dammann violated church law. Church law says "since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church."
Finkbeiner argued that Dammann has already provided "self-avowed" evidence that she is a "practicing" homosexual – first in a 2001 letter to her bishop saying she was in a "partnered, covenanted, homosexual relationship," and then in a 2002 statement that her relationship with her partner of about nine years did indeed involve sexual contact.
"It is not the law of the church on trial today," Finkbeiner said. "Your job is to find her guilty or innocent (under present law). It is as simple as that."
Dammann's defense team framed its argument broadly, asking jurors to consider the Methodist church's history of fighting for social justice and civil rights, whether its current law banning "practicing" gay clergy is in line with that history, and saying it was important to take church law, and the biblical passages on which it is based, into context.
The defense argued against focusing only on a small piece of church law in determining Dammann's fate.
"Let the book guide you," said the Rev. Robert Ward, referring to the Book of Discipline, which includes the United Methodist Church's laws and teachings. "But let it be the whole book."
The whole Book of Discipline, Ward argued, reflects Jesus' ministry to the marginalized and includes statements confirming the sacredness of all humans including gays, and the importance of preserving civil rights for all people.
Dammann's counsel also argued that it is up to the church to prove that she is having sexual contact with someone of the same gender and that her saying she had sexual contact wasn't enough evidence.
Yesterday's first two expert witnesses, called by Dammann's defense, were biblical scholars who said that if the Bible passages commonly cited as evidence against homosexuality were taken into historical context, they wouldn't necessarily be a condemnation.
Dammann's trial is likely to have major repercussions on the denomination.
Its General Conference, which meets every four years to vote on church laws and teachings, meets in Pittsburgh next month and experts predict that whatever the verdict is, it is "bound to stir a lot of tension," said Thomas Frank, director of Methodist Studies at Emory University's Candler School of Theology in Atlanta.
"If Dammann is found guilty, supporters of gay and lesbian civil rights will probably organize even stronger. And if she's acquitted, some people will say, 'If this isn't enough to expel a person from ministry, what is?'"
The Rev. Rick Vinther, pastor of Woodinville Community United Methodist Church, who believes in church law as it stands on issues of homosexuality, says "the outcome of this trial has great impact for a lot of people on whether they're going to stay in the Methodist Church."
How the United Methodist Church deals with the conflict is probably being watched by other denominations as well, such as the Episcopal Church, whose recent consecration of an openly gay bishop spurred talk of schism, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is studying whether to let people in committed homosexual relationships be ordained.
It's unclear how long Dammann's trial will continue, though it was scheduled through the weekend. Before it began yesterday, 33 people were arrested while peacefully blocking the entrance to the trial, saying church laws on homosexuality were unjust.
While the majority of demonstrators were Dammann's supporters, those supporting current church laws on homosexuality also attended the proceeding.
• Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272 or jtu@seattletimes.com


Knoxville News-Sentinel, March 18, 2004
Box 59038, Knoxville, TN, 37950-9038
(Fax: 423-521-8124 ) (E-Mail: letters@knews.com )
( http://www.knoxnews.com/ )
http://reg.knoxnews.com/kns/web/registrationForm?from=www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_2738005,00.html
Gay-union bill scrutinized
Debate in state House committee over civil pacts becomes uncivil at times
By Tom Humphrey, Tomhumphrey3@aol.com
NASHVILLE – Acrimonious exchanges between legislators and spectators marked a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday on a bill to prohibit civil unions between same-sex couples.
The leading Senate critic of the bill, meanwhile, said he plans to seek a formal opinion from the attorney general on the legal ramifications of enacting the measure.
Sen. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, said the proposal could cause problems for private companies that grant same-sex partners of employees the same benefits as spouses of employees. Cohen cast the sole dissenting vote Tuesday when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill.
The same bill came before the House Domestic Relations subcommittee Wednesday, with sponsor Rep. Chris Clem, R-Lookout Mountain, contending there was ample support for passage.
Debate included Rep. Beverly Marrero, D-Memphis, questioning whether the bill was "un-Christian." Rep. Steve Buttry, R-Knoxville, responded by saying her remarks amounted to questioning someone's faith and were, therefore, "appalling."
Buttry also moved to shut off debate and require an immediate vote, but the motion – requiring a two-thirds majority – failed.
Instead, the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Sherry Jones, D-Nashville, wound up declaring the meeting adjourned without allowing a vote, postponing a decision until next week. Another round of exchanges ensued.
For example, a woman who was in the audience, identifying herself as Pat Cash, 52, of Nashville, shouted at Clem remarks such as, "You are not God!" A man later identifying himself as Jack Brown of Sumner County, shouted back at Cash and told Clem, "You are totally right, thank you."
Clem told reporters that "the ACLU, the homosexual lobby and the Democratic leadership, led by Speaker (Jimmy) Naifeh, want this bill killed." The strategy, he said, was to repeatedly delay a vote and eventually call for studying the idea for a year or more.
"This is their way of killing it without being on the record as voting against it," he said.
Naifeh and Jones both said in interviews that they had never discussed the issue. Naifeh said he had supported a law, on the books since 1996, that forbids same-sex marriages in Tennessee and that Clem is "obviously just doing this for political purposes."
"We have not decided what's going to happen with the legislation because we have not had enough time to talk about it," said Jones when questioned about her delay of a vote.
"I just think we need to have all of our facts together," she said. "We need to know exactly what's going on with the legislation, how it affects the companies that already recognize domestic partnerships and not set ourselves up for some kind of challenge in court."
Clem and Sen. Jeff Miller, R-Cleveland, who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, said passage of the bill is needed to help the state avoid recognizing same-sex civil unions authorized in other states.
Vermont is the only state to officially sanction civil unions now, but the Massachusetts legislature is considering the idea after that state's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages are legal.
Miller, an attorney, said enactment of a ban on civil unions would affirm the "public policy" of Tennessee as a state and improve the state's legal position in opposing any lawsuit by a same-sex couple for recognition of their civil-union status granted in another state.
But Cohen, also an attorney, said the legal import of such a law in case of a lawsuit is unclear. He said enactment of a law, however, could impact the status of employment contracts now in effect with some Tennessee businesses.
Miller said those contracts would not be impacted because they are independent of state action. But Cohen said that contracts that violate official state policy, as stated by the Legislature, may be held invalid.
The issue would arise, he said, if the same-sex partner of a company employee should be denied insurance benefits under a contract granting him or her the same rights to benefits as a spouse. When such a case went to court, Cohen said a judge could void payment of any benefits as contrary to state public policy.
Cohen also contended that enactment of such a law would deter many major companies that offer same-sex couple benefits from locating in Tennessee.
"Cultural, artistic, educated people might not want to come to our state," said Cohen.
• The Associated Press contributed to this story. Tom Humphrey may be reached at 615-242-7782.


Des Moines Register, March 18, 2004
Box 957, Des Moines, Iowa 50304
(Fax: 515-286-2511 ) (E-MAIL: letters@news.dmreg.com)
Marriage moves to forefront, no matter the definition
By Mark Hansen, Register Columnist
Everyone has been getting territorial about marriage lately. Gay people want a piece of the action. Straight people post no-trespassing signs.
President Bush has turned protectionist. Not long ago, he came out in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly a union between a man and a woman. A few months before that, he said he wanted to sink $1.5 billion into a "promotion of marriage" initiative.
Meanwhile, a handful of cities have been passing out same-sex licenses left and right, as if tossing candy to spectators along a parade route.
Then you have t