|
|
|||
|
|
Lexington
MA Throws Fit for a Gay "King" It leads to a fictional royal gay marriage in the fanciful children’s book King & King, written and authored by Dutch collaborators Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, and the source of a bitter battle in Lexington Massachusetts - where on March 24th at Estabrook Elementary School, Heather Kramer cracked open the colorful book and read it to her second grade class. One of the boys in the class returned home, and in conversation with his mother, told her about it. "We are outraged," said the mother, Robin Wirthlin, to the local Article 8 Alliance, a resistance group that now urges other parents to help ban the book in classrooms. "This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade? And we cannot present our family’s point of view to our children if they don’t tell us what they’re saying to them." The reading was part of a "wedding" theme for the day - and because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Kramer felt it was appropriate to read the story despite not being part of the established curriculum. The school’s superintendent, during a confrontation with the Wirthlins, supported the decision. "We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed," Superintendent Paul Ash said to the Boston Globe. "Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal." "Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."The Wirthins have a different view. "They’re trying to indoctrinate our children," Robin Wirthlin fired back. The Massachusetts Family Institute, a political action group behind the proposed Massachusetts Protection of Marriage Amendment, has now joined the fray. Its president, Kris Mineau, told the Baptist Press that the group has "always maintained that the very first level of impact [from the legalization of gay marriage] would be in the public school system, where children would be taught morals that are counter to the morals that parents want them to be taught. Taxpayer money should never be used to put children at odds with their parents." Another conservative organization, the Parents Right Coalition, is currently working on a bill that would permit parents to "opt out" their children when classrooms have discussions that involve homosexuality. To Kramer and Ash, however, their school is merely presenting "all points of view" as part of the educational process. Ash has noted that since sexual orientation does not qualify as a "human sexual issue" in the Massachusetts parental notification law (M.G.L. Ch. 73 Sec. 32a), the school is not required to provide parents advanced notice that the topic will be discussed. Tricycle Press says it’s proud to be the publisher of King & King. "It features an unconditional love that ignores conventional boundaries," said Laura Mancuso, the company’s marketing manager, in an e-mail statement. "There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light." To the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, the heated topic can be reduced to clear protection of First Amendment rights. "Americans are deeply divided over homosexuality in our society," said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which produces guidelines for schools and teachers on the subject. "But if school officials and community members use the ground rules of the First Amendment, they can reach agreement on how public schools can guard the rights of all students in a safe learning environment." -30-
Gay groups slam Hillary Clinton's “ambiguous” gay policy
US Democrats have blocked progress on gay rights, according to activists. Eight Democratic senators, including Senator Hillary Clinton, former first lady and wife of President Bill Clinton, listened to complaints last week from gay groups that they and their party colleagues have hindered progress on gay rights. The officials were criticised for “tortured” and “hair splitting policies” on gay issues, and were accused of hurting the gay movement by remaining ambiguous on issues such as same sex marriage. Mrs Clinton organised the meeting in her role as chair of the Senate Democrats' Steering & Outreach Committee. The meeting was closed to the media and public. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid also attended, along with leaders of more than 20 prominent gay rights and AIDs organisations. "We talked about the way [senators] appear to be largely passive, doing nothing affirmative on LGBT issues? in ways that actually are problematic for us and harmful to the work that we do," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal Defence & Education Fund, who was among the gay leaders who spoke at the meeting. Mr Cathcart said he told the senators the gay and AIDs groups appreciated the Democratic senators' overall support on gay and AIDs related issues. But, he said, he also told them that gay leaders were worried that Senate Democrats and the party generally were not responding in a visible and assertive way to attacks against gay marriage and other gay rights efforts by conservative Republicans and conservative religious advocacy groups. "Particularly the rhetoric they use around the things like marriage, where instead of advocating for fairness and inclusion, they actually advocate discrimination," Mr Cathcart said. He was referring to statements by most Democratic senators, as well as most Democratic members of the House of Representatives, that they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions or domestic partnerships as the best means of strengthening same-sex relationships. Howard Dean, chair on the Democratic Party and a former presidential candidate, has also said he opposes gay marriage while supporting civil unions. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the party's presidential nominee in 2004, was not present at the meeting and he, too, backs civil unions, even supporting an amendment to his home state's constitution that would ban gays from marrying. Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Mr Reid, said the meeting was part of the Democratic senators' regular outreach efforts to constituency groups, including gay and AIDs groups. He said the meeting marked the third time the Steering & Outreach Committee has met with gay and AIDs group representatives during the past four years. "These are important meetings for Senator Reid and the committee," Mr Manley said while declining to comment on the issues discussed at the meeting. "We never talk about what is discussed at these meetings. It's more conducive to frank discussion if we keep these meetings private." Diana Bruce, director of policy and government affairs for the AIDs Alliance for Children, Youth & Families, said she and other representatives of AIDs groups briefed senators on issues such as the pending reauthorisation of the Ryan White AIDs CARE Act. Others briefed the senators on gay-related issues such as the status of a federal hate crimes bill and efforts to repeal the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military. The meeting took place three months before a scheduled June 5 vote in the Senate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment is expected to be defeated, just as the Senate and House failed to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, a similar proposal, in 2004. But Democratic Party strategists have expressed concern that Republican supporters of the amendment and their allies among conservative religious groups will seize on the issue to attack Democrats in the upcoming 2006 congressional elections. With polls showing President Bush and Republican candidates losing support over an unpopular war in Iraq and lobbying scandals linked to GOP contributors, Democrats are pulling out all the stops to regain control of the Senate and House. Some party activists have expressed concern that the gay marriage issue could hurt the Democrats' chances of winning back Congress. Mr Cathcart said he understands the senators who attended the meeting don't believe they are advocating discrimination, but he said their position for civil unions rather than same-sex marriage was similar to the "separate but equal" policies that barred African Americans from attending public schools designated for whites only. "One of our concerns as a group is that they don't necessarily hear enough back from the community on how we hear and perceive the sometimes tortured and hair-splitting positions they try to take," he said. "We are tired of being seen as the embarrassment to the party." The meeting came less than a month after Alan Van Capelle, a leading gay rights activist, who represents the Empire State Pride Agenda, said Mrs Clinton was "a complete disappointment" over her opposition to same-sex marriage and her support for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. His criticism of Mrs Clinton surfaced in a private e-mail he sent to members of his organisation that was leaked to the media. Mr Van Capelle attended the meeting with the senators but did not speak, according to others who were there. Mrs Clinton supports civil unions, a similar system to the British civil partnership scheme, gay marriage in all but name. However, she continues to support the Defence of Marriage Act, enacted by her husband that maintains that marriages must be between partners of the opposite sex. She opposes moves to create a constitutional amendment that permanently rules out gay marriage. The meeting also follows complaints by gay Democratic activists that Mr Dean, as Democratic Party chair, abolished the party's gay and lesbian outreach desk as part of a party reorganisation that eliminated all constituency "desks." Mr Dean's decision to eliminate the gay desk, along with his statements claiming the party opposes gay marriage, prompted New York gay Democratic activist Jeff Soref to resign last year from his position as chair of the Democratic Party's Gay & Lesbian Americans Caucus. Eliza Byard, deputy executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN,) said she and other activists attending the meeting with the senators pointed out that negative rhetoric on gay-related issues, including gay marriage, often has a negative impact on young people. She said her organisation, which monitors the nation's public schools, has found that anti-gay statements made by elected officials and others in the public eye can lead to anti-gay harassment and bullying of gay students in high schools and middle schools. "When elected officials say negative things about us, it has an impact on young people," she said. Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, who also attended the meeting, said each of the Democratic senators have been supportive of gay rights in general and have expressed support for a gay civil rights bill. He said each has pledged to vote against the upcoming anti-gay marriage amendment. "The conversation was more about the message and how to talk about the issues," Mr Solmonese said. "I think that everyone in that room was committed to us on the issues." He said he and other gay and AIDS group officials called on the senators to begin "speaking out a little more vocally and bit more extensively, not just supporting us on the marriage fight that is coming up in June but really being much more vocal about calling it for what it is." Evan Wolfson, head of the pro-gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, pointed to a new public opinion poll released this week showing that support for gay marriage is increasing. Mr Wolfson did not attend the meeting with the senators but said he briefed the gay leaders on upcoming marriage developments in a telephone conference before the meeting. "The Democrats are viewed as the party of gay rights because that's part of their historic tradition of supporting civil rights for all Americans," he said. "They will never be anti-gay enough to satisfy their opponents" who strongly oppose same-sex marriage, he said. Instead of pandering to voters whose support they are unlikely to get, Democrats should make the case for same-sex marriage in a way that will move the issue forward, he added. -30-
Marriage amendment may go beyond gays MINNESOTA:
The plan may allow legal challenges of benefits BY
TOM WEBB
-30-
EDITORIALS (Trenton
Times) On the other side, the state attorney general's office advised the court that only the Legislature and governor, through the normal lawmaking process, can authorize gay marriages. This newspaper's view, stated in the past, is that New Jersey should recognize marriage as a basic civil right that should not be denied to committed adults, regardless of their gender. Such a recognition would be consistent with this state's long tradition of opposing discrimination and protecting privacy. The standard contention of opponents of same-sex marriage -- that it would pose a threat to heterosexual unions -- has never been backed up by a shred of logic or evidence, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is none to be found. Ideally, this civil right should be established by legislation. But if the Legislature and governor lack the nerve to take this controversial step, we hope the court, in its wisdom, will find that the right is already there. Justice Deborah Poritz, during questioning, identified an option available to the court that would establish the right to marriage without gender restriction and at the same time acknowledge the role of the Legislature in establishing state policy on this important question. She noted that New Jersey, in its marriage laws, doesn't restrict marriage to one man and one woman, as most states do. Reading those statutes together with the guarantee of civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation, she suggested, could support an argument that the law already permits same-sex marriage. Lambda Legal's lawyer passed up that approach, preferring to pursue a finding by the court of a constitutional guarantee. But if the justices were to follow the Poritz road map and choose to not address the constitutional issue, but simply to rule that existing law gives the plaintiffs the end they have sought, that in itself would transform the political landscape. No longer would it be necessary for proponents to ask the Legislature to be pro-active, and brave the wrath of fundamentalist church groups, by formally legalizing gay marriage. Rather, the burden would be on the opponents to try to enact a bill rewriting the state's marriage statutes. Such a bill, moreover, would be subject to veto by Gov. Jon Corzine, whose record is one of strong support for civil rights. The chances are good that the present marriage laws -- and the court's interpretation of them -- would stand. It's ironic that those most bitter in their opposition to gay marriage, the so-called defenders of marriage, want to narrow rather than expand the number of those eligible for its benefits. They should understand that embracing an institution as venerable and as regulated as marriage is a conservative act. New York Times and Times of Trenton columnist David Brooks put that proposition eloquently when he wrote: "The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity." The continued success of the institution of marriage doesn't rest on who is permitted to marry whom. Marriage will endure as long as it continues to improve the couples who enter into it and to bestow benefits on society at large. In one way or another, last week's arguments at the Justice Complex may have advanced the day when the benefits and responsibilities of marriage will be available to all, regardless of sexual orientation. We profoundly hope so.
NATIONALLY, A GAY MARRIAGE EXPLOSION Bay Area Reporter,
San Francisco 2/16/2006 And, as gay activist groups promote this week as ?reedom to Marry Week,?the supreme court of New Jersey heard arguments Wednesday in a case seeking equal marriage rights there, and the supreme court of New York this month received its first briefs in that state? marriage lawsuit. Once again, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is in a pivotal position on the issue. The court is preparing to rule on a lawsuit, Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, which is challenging a directive from the governor to enforce a 1913 law that was passed to discourage interracial couples. Republican Governor Mitt Romney ordered state officials to use it to prevent gay couples from out-of-state from obtaining marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Specifically, the 1913 law states that, ?o marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.? In its lawsuit, filed on behalf of eight same-sex couples from six neighboring states, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argued that the state? application of the 1913 law violates the state and U.S. constitutions. A second lawsuit, filed by 13 town clerks, argued that the 1913 law has not been enforced against out-of-state couples for many decades and that the state? directive to enforce it against same-sex couples was ?latantly discriminatory.?/p> Both sides of the marriage battle are poised for the decision. GLAD recently sent out an e-mail alerting reporters that the decision could come out any day. And last weekend, one of the opponents of gay marriage hired three small airplanes to fly over Boston Harbor pulling signs deriding the state supreme court. The state supreme court, led by its Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, issued the landmark decision in November 2003 which said the state constitution requires the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples the same as it does to heterosexual couples. The vote on that decision, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, was close - 4 to 3 - and conservative politicians have repeatedly criticized the court, including President Bush, for its ?ctivism.?Some critics have pressed for resignations and impeachment, but in Massachusetts, justices are appointed to serve until they turn 70, and all seven are still on the bench. In Washington State, voters elect justices of the supreme court, and half of the nine-member bench has been there only since 2000. In November, the court voted 7 to 2 in favor of a lesbian? right to a trial to prove she is a parent to a child her former partner gave birth to. The majority said the best interests of a child must be examined ?n the face of differing notions of family?and that ?eason and common sense support recognizing the existence of de facto parents and according them the rights and responsibilities which attach to parents in this state." That ruling bodes well on the marriage issue, and the court is expected to rule by March 9 on two cases that seek equal marriage rights for gay couples. One of the lawsuits in Washington, Andersen v. King County , was the first of many to be filed around the country following the landmark Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. And each limits its challenge to state constitutional issues, thus minimizing the likelihood that the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Because it involves a U.S. constitutional issue, the Massachusetts 1913 case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.) Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, with the Northwest Women? Law Center, brought Andersen v. King County ; the ACLU brought the other lawsuit, Castle v. Washington. Both cases won successful declarations at the lower court level. No matter what the results are in the Washington and Massachusetts cases, the battle over same-sex marriage will almost certainly escalate and expand. In both Washington and Massachusetts, ballot initiatives are stirring. Washington voters could decide this November whether to keep a recently passed law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and no matter how the state supreme court rules, anti-gay activists are expected to try to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Massachusetts voters are expected to vote in 2008 on whether to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and legal recognition of any form of same-sex relationships. In almost a dozen other states, other lawsuits similar to Goodridge are pressing forward, with those in New Jersey and New York leading the second wave. The farthest along is in New Jersey, where the state supreme court heard oral arguments Wednesday. Lewis v. Harris, brought by Lambda Legal Defense, focuses solely on state constitutional issues and lost at the lower court level. In New York, there are five cases pending, but the farthest along is Hernandez v. Robles, brought by Lambda Legal Defense, which filed its first briefs with the state supreme court earlier this month. The challenge, which focuses on state constitutional issues only, was successful at the trial level but reversed at the intermediate appeals level. Whatever the results in the state courts, the gay marriage issue will almost certainly continue to inspire political debate at the national level and once again be used as fodder for this year? Congressional races and next year? launch of presidential campaigns. U.S Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seemed to ensure the issue would play a role in this year? Congressional elections and beyond when he announced Monday that he will have the Senate vote in June on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. -30- RHODE ISLAND:
State House rally combines romance and politics
Looking into Tony Caparco's eyes, he said, "Will you marry me?" The two men have been together 25 years, and have lived in the same house in Warwick for 20. Still, neither of them had ever proposed. For Ferri, who co-chairs the advocacy group Marriage Equality Rhode Island, the familiar Valentine's Day gesture made a point -- he popped the question in a crowded State House rotunda amid a rally for same-sex marriage -- but it was also sincere. Caparco didn't know it was coming, he said afterward as he showed off the diamond band, which Ferri had bought on a cruise the couple took two years ago. The men, both Providence natives, own property in Massachusetts, and could get married there, but choose not to, Caparco said: "We want to get married here, where we grew up, where we have family, where we have businesses." Ferri, 52, owns the Town Hall Lanes bowling alley in Johnston. Caparco, 58, manages a granite countertop store in Warwick. Ferri's proposal served as a grand finale to the two-hour rally, which featured music: "All you need is love. . ." -- "Goin' to the chapel and we're gonna get maaaaaarried" -- posters aplenty, and a banner unfurled from the third-floor balcony, stretching all the way to the marble floor of the rotunda, and then some. The list contained a sampling of the rights and protections conferred by marriage under state and federal law -- a list more than 1,400 items long, by the event organizers' count. Those rights and protections are not available to same-sex couples -- but the demonstrators yesterday said they hope that will soon change. State Sen. Rhoda E. Perry, D-Providence, the bill's prime sponsor in the Senate, said she hopes this will be the year for a change of heart in the legislative leadership. (House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano both oppose same-sex marriage.) If they're worried about the political implications of supporting such a measure, Perry said, they might look to neighboring Massachusetts. "Not one politician in Massachusetts who voted for same-sex marriage has lost his or her seat," Perry said. "Not one!" State Rep. Eileen S. Naughton, D-Warwick, announced proudly that one fellow Warwick Democrat -- Rep. Peter T. Ginaitt -- had joined the list of cosponsors this year. Besides Perry and Naughton, other politicians in attendance included state representatives Edith H. Ajello and Paul E. Moura, both Providence Democrats, and Al Gemma, D-Warwick; state Senators Elizabeth H. Roberts, D-Cranston, and Charles J. Levesque, D-Portsmouth; and several Democratic congressional candidates, including Brown University professor Jennifer Lawless, who's running against U.S. Rep. James R. Langevin, and all three Democratic candidates for Lincoln D. Chafee's U.S. Senate seat: Secretary of State Matt Brown, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse and West Greenwich businessman Carl L. Sheeler. The protest's theme -- "Get Engaged" -- combined romance and politics. A handout urged attendees to "get engaged" by contributing time or money to Marriage Equality Rhode Island and by contacting their state legislators to encourage them to support the bill. State legislators have introduced similar legislation every year but one since 1997. But, said the rally's master of ceremonies, Newport filmmaker and theatrical director Don Mays, "This is going to be the last time we have to have this rally, because the legislature is going to make the move. They are going to become. . ." He didn't have to finish his sentence; the crowd did it for him. "Engaged!"
Personal Opinion :op/ed from The Baltimore Sun Originally published February 15, 2006
Peter Sprigg
is vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, and a
resident of Montgomery County. His e-mail is corrdept@frc.org. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from maneuverings in the General Assembly regarding legislation to place a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution on the ballot this fall that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, just as it has been defined by state law since 1973. Interest in the amendment was rekindled Jan. 20 when Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled, in a lawsuit brought by several homosexual couples, that limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman violates the state constitution. On Jan. 31, the state House Judiciary Committee again heard testimony on the Marriage Protection Act. About two dozen supporters of homosexual "marriage" showed up to protest, in contrast to the hundreds of supporters of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. They filled the hearing room to overflowing, and many waited outside the building for hours for a chance to make their viewpoint heard. You would think that such strong support for a bill would at least guarantee a spirited floor debate. Wrong. The flurry of parliamentary maneuvers over the bill was astonishing. First, there was a successful petition to bring the bill to the House floor. House Speaker Michael E. Busch swiftly adjourned the session rather than have the bill debated. Then the Judiciary Committee rejected the bill by a single vote. Finally, the full House refused to take it up again on a 78-61 vote. What is most peculiar is that despite their determination to kill the bill, very few legislators have expressed support for changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couplings. In fact, during the hearings, even witnesses against the amendment (representing the leadership of the NAACP and AFL-CIO) were reluctant to say that they support same-sex "marriage." After Judge Murdock's ruling, simply avoiding the issue out of fear of offending either side is no longer an option. Waiting to see how the case is resolved on appeal in the courts is like saying, "Don't shut the barn door until after the horse is gone." Do not underestimate the significance of the House refusal to act on the bill. In 2002, Massachusetts Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham gaveled to a close, without a vote, a constitutional convention that was certain to advance a marriage amendment to the ballot. With the people's voice silenced, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was free, two years later, to declare that the state constitution guaranteed a right to homosexual "marriage." Legislators who favor same-sex "marriage" should have the courage to say so and promote legislation to change the definition of marriage, not let the courts do their work for them. But legislators who claim to believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman should be honest enough to acknowledge that only a constitutional amendment will protect the definition of marriage. Any legislator who believes in the democratic process should respect the rights of the people to make decisions that are so fundamental to the fabric of society. If Democrats are worried that marriage will be used as a "wedge issue" against them in the November elections, there is a simple solution: They should endorse the amendment. It worked for President Bill Clinton when he signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996. A marriage amendment also has been introduced as legislation in the Maryland Senate. Bills defeated in one legislative chamber are usually not taken up in the other. Then again, judges usually do not read into law radical redefinitions of foundational social institutions. The Senate should take up the Marriage Protection Act and act favorably on it. Contrary to popular belief, marriage is not a divisive issue. There are few issues that unite Marylanders, and Americans, as much as a belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There will be plenty of time for other debates about the rights and/or privileges of homosexuals. People know what "marriage" is, and they have the right to make their voices heard on this issue at the polls. -30-
Colorado A Harbinger?
Voters Oppose Same Sex Marriage Polling Data Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Colorado? Support 55% Oppose 36%
Support 50% Oppose 41%
-30-
Colorado Conservative's
Bill Offers Some Rights to Gay Couples By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff
Writer So it came as a surprise to political analysts — and to gay and lesbian activists — when Focus on the Family endorsed a bill this month that would give same-sex couples in Colorado some of the same rights as heterosexual spouses. The bill tries to chart a neutral middle ground through an issue that has roiled state after state in recent years. The bill's author, Republican state Sen. Shawn Mitchell, does not support gay marriage or other arrangements, such as civil unions, that would put same-sex households on par with the traditional family. But he also thinks it's wrong that a gay man could be denied the right to visit his partner in the hospital or the ability to carry the partner as a dependent on his health insurance. So Mitchell has proposed a new legal category in Colorado: "reciprocal beneficiaries." His bill would allow any two people who are close but cannot legally marry — a lesbian couple, two elderly brothers, an aunt and her doting niece — to register with their county clerk as reciprocal beneficiaries. That would give them access to some of the same rights as married couples with respect to medical decision-making, inheritance and property ownership. Mitchell said he might add other economic rights. (He's considering whether beneficiaries should be able to claim survivor benefits if their loved one dies in a workplace accident.) Mitchell acknowledges that his bill dodges the key symbolic issue of same-sex marriage — and that's exactly the point. "I think we should be looking for constructive solutions, instead of always looking for conflict," he said. Same-sex households can already obtain many of the benefits spelled out in Mitchell's bill, but it's a costly, time-consuming process requiring several separate legal documents. Mitchell's bill would make the process easy and cheap. "It corrects unfairness," said Peter Brandt, senior director for public policy at Focus on the Family, which is based in Colorado Springs, about 60 miles south of Denver. Focus on the Family endorsed the bill the same week it joined several influential clergy to propose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Colorado. That measure will probably be on the November ballot; most analysts expect it to pass handily. Brandt said he saw no inconsistency in fighting same-sex marriage while endorsing limited rights for gay or lesbian households. Mitchell's bill, he said, does not treat same-sex couples as the legal or the moral equivalent of married spouses. It puts them in the same category as siblings or roommates — offering them practical help without giving them benefits reserved for married couples, such as the ability to file a joint tax return or to adopt each other's children. "The bill is not based on sexuality," Brandt said. "It's based on need." A competing bill, offered by two Democrats, would allow same-sex couples to establish domestic partnerships that function as the legal equivalent of marriage. That's the approach favored by Michael Brewer, public policy director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado. But he said he was pleasantly surprised that Focus on the Family had endorsed even the more limited rights laid out in the Mitchell bill. "It is a shift," he said. "The bill will provide recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex couples." -30-
Heritage Foundation
Report Claims States Are Concerned http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50/Marriage50States.cfm (Editor's Note: The following is an unedited report from The Heritage Foundation) States across America are concerned that their laws may not withstand the legal challenge of activist judges, so they are moving to strengthen their existing statutory language that recognizes marriage between a man and a woman or to amend their constitution to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage. The information on this page is intended to reflect the breadth of the movement to defend marriage throughout the United States. * CT, MA, NJ, NM, NY, and RI do not have statutory or constitutional language preserving the traditional understanding of marriage. MA has legalized same-sex "marriage;" MA does have a pending constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage. Since the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, 15 states adopted a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage on a ballot, while currently 19 states are moving to strengthen laws protecting marriage through constitutional amendment. All ballot measures have passed by considerable majorities, even in Oregon, a state where same-sex "marriage" proponents thought such a measure could successfully be defeated.
In addition to measures being taken at the state level, a marriage protection act has been introduced to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve marriage. Though the motion to proceed on this proposal was defeated in the Senate and House in 2004, there are plans to reintroduce the measure. President Bush has expressed his support for the amendment. Prior to the activity during 2004, many states moved to protect marriage in their state codes in the late 1990s prompted by the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. While all of these states adopted language similar to the federal DOMA, there is some variation. This chart breaks down the federal DOMA language into its components and tracks what language was used by which states. States incorporating more components benefit from stronger statutory language. Examples of states with strong marriage statutes are Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio. States with weaker marriage statutes include Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, South Dakota, and Vermont. Some states had already defined marriage in their state statutes prior to the passage of the federal DOMA. These states are Maryland, New Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It should also be noted that Connecticut’s common law recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman.
Regardless of whether a state's laws or constitutional provisions specifically define marriage and prohibit same sex "marriage," all states have consanguinity laws, prohibiting individuals from marrying their blood relations. Many states specifically prohibit a male from marrying his female blood relations and females from marrying her male blood relations. Inherent in these laws is the understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50/Marriage50States.cfm -30-
Same-sex marriage goes to top court in New Jersey A liberal-leaning New Jersey Supreme Court could swiftly legalize gay nuptials, lawyers and scholars say. By Kaitlin Gurney http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13848986.htm Philadelphia Inquirer 2/13/05 Trenton BureauTRENTON - New Jersey could become the second state to legalize gay marriage in a case that will reach the State Supreme Court this week, focusing debate in the battle that many advocates call the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. Half of the states in the country have moved to ban gay nuptials since the Massachusetts high court's landmark decision in late 2003. But New Jersey has been among a few states that instead have chosen to extend new rights to same-sex couples. Gay-rights advocates are seeking to build upon a limited domestic-partnership law that the Legislature enacted two years ago by securing full marriage benefits from a liberal-leaning court that once cited the Boy Scouts for discrimination. "New Jersey is a unique state nationally when it comes to this issue," said David Buckel, marriage project director for the gay civil-rights group Lambda Legal, who will argue the case Wednesday. "That became very clear with a governor's race in which candidates on both sides opposed an amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman." Seven gay and lesbian couples in long-term relationships, some of whom have raised children together for more than 30 years, sued the state in 2002, long before gay marriage exploded onto the national political stage. They argued that a state statute defining marriage as a union of heterosexual couples "marginalizes an entire class of citizens" - and violates broad equal-rights protections in the state's constitution. Despite rejections at the trial and appellate court levels, lawyers and scholars say the New Jersey Supreme Court could cut ahead of similar suits pending in Washington, California, New York, Maryland, Connecticut and Iowa by swiftly legalizing gay marriage. "New Jersey's court has a long and proud history of interpreting cases in favor of civil rights, and a victory in this case would be in keeping with that tradition," said Sally Goldfarb, a family law professor at Rutgers University Law School in Camden who studies family law issues. "The New Jersey Supreme Court has not hesitated to overturn state laws, and so these litigants are in a better position than they would be before most other courts across the country." New Jersey conservatives are girding themselves for what they foresee could be another "activist" ruling from a court that in 2000 struck down parental notification for abortions and in the 1970s decided one of the first right-to-die cases in favor of the family of brain-damaged Karen Ann Quinlan. A pair of Washington cases that had been victorious at the trial-court level were argued before the state's Supreme Court nearly a year ago, and a ruling is expected any day. "Any time a disenfranchised group has fought for liberty and equality, we have seen a patchwork across the country as some states move forward and others lag behind. This was true with racial equality, women's equality and, in perhaps the closest parallel, interracial marriage," said Buckel, of Lambda Legal. "Each time discrimination ends in any state, it becomes obvious that the sky didn't fall." Read more at http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13848986.htm -30-
Idaho Senate
Prepares To Vote On Gay Unions Ban February 10, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET (Boise, Idaho) The Idaho Senate will vote Monday on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. The amendment says that "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized" in Idaho. The measure passed the House earlier this week. (story) Earlier today the Senate State Affairs Committee voted voted 5-4 to send the proposed amendment to the full Senate where it must get support of two-thirds of the members in order to be placed on the ballot in November. In addition to banning gay marriage and civil unions opponents say it could be used to nullify domestic partner benefits and health insurance for gay families. Rep. Nicole LeFavour (D-Boise), the only openly gay elected official in Idaho, said if the matter goes to voters she fears it will be approved. LeFavour said that supporters of the amendment are hiding all of the implications of the measure, telling voters it only would ban same-sex marriage. LeFavour said that the state does not need the amendment. If people want to ban gay marriage, she said, there already is a law doing that. But supporters of the amendment say that if the courts in Massachusetts could overturn a ban on same-sex marriage it could happen just as easily in Idaho. This is the third time the legislature has taken up a proposed constitutional amendment. A similar proposal passed a Senate committee last year but failed to win the two-thirds majority in the full Senate. The year before, the measure died in a Senate committee after it passed the House. -30-
There
goes the neighborhood North Shore Sunday: Town Online But from the beginning, both Lang and Toleos strongly discouraged anyone from harassing or harming anyone who signed the petitions. In fact, that plea is part of KnowThyNeighbor.org’s mission statement. But, if people decide they don’t want to do business with someone who signed, or donate to a cause they might be championing, well, that’s another matter. Lang has been
meeting will state lawmakers to discuss where they stand and how they’ll
vote, and he’s already planning to do some fund-raising for candidates
who will oppose the amendment. A turning point
might have been back in September when Lang asked Michele Tassinari,
the legal consultant for elections at Secretary of State William Galvin’s
office, if he could post the names of people who signed the petitions.
The Massachusetts
Family Institute may be trying to channel complaints against KnowThyNeighbor.org
to the attorney general’s office, but they also have some big
worries of their own. Over the past couple weeks more and more people
have come forward to say they were duped into signing the petition,
and had they realized the it was for an amendment to ban same-sex
marriage, they would have walked away. Those who have
come forward to complain say workers collecting signatures in front
of grocery stores often said their petitions were to allow the stores
to sell beer and wine. Others were told they were actually signing
a petition to support gay marriage. But it’s
been a process and Lang admits he’s grown a lot more determined
over the years. And he’s changed. For Lang, the
answer is pretty clear. -30- -30- END OF SECTION
|
|
|
