Cal. City Calls
For Legal Gay Marriage
by
Mark Worrall
365Gay.com Newscenter
San Francisco Bureau
April 24, 2003
6:05 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Davis, California)
The city of Davis, in Northern California, has
passed a resolution calling on the state to
legalize gay marriage.
The resolution asks
Gov. Gray Davis and the state Legislature to
"end discrimination against lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgendered people and their
families by (removing) references to sex and
gender as eligibility requirements for a civil
marriage license."
Mayor Susie Boyd
said allowing gays and lesbians the right to
marry is a civil matter, not religious.
"I have the deepest
respect for those of you who hold this as a
religious belief, that marriage is between a man
and woman," Boyd said. " (However,) I think
that the civil rights and the legal issues are
really what we need to grapple with tonight, and
marriage provides certain protections and
benefits ... that are people's rights."
The four council
members present supported the resolution,
including Councilman Ted Puntillo, who initially
had reservations. Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson
was absent Wednesday due to an illness in her
family.
"I think that two
consenting adults should be able to marry each
other, and I think that the government should
just butt out," Councilman Mike Harrington said.
Harrington last week said that he believes gay
marriage is one of the last important civil
rights issues in the country.
"It just seems to
me," Councilwoman Sue Greenwald added, "that
it's to the benefit of society to encourage
people to enter into committed relationships and
to take (responsibility) for each other."
Before voting
council heard from about 30 public speakers.
Ellen Pontac and her
partner Shelly Bailes were among the supporters
of the resolution.
"Although Ellen and
I have been together for almost 30 years and
have wills and trusts, when one of us dies, our
house will be reassessed and the survivor will
have to pay taxes on that reassessment," Bailes
said. "It's very likely that the survivor
(won't) be able to (pay them) and (will) have to
move."
Other supporters
testified that the resolution was simply a
matter of equality.
"I am growing up,"
Davis High student Jesse Smith said. "As I grow,
I will fall in love with somebody. Whether
that's a man or a woman, I should be allowed to
marry that person."
Public speakers on
both sides of the resolution referred to the
statewide March 2000 vote on the "California
Defense of Marriage Act," which defined marriage
in state law as between a man and a woman. The
measure, Proposition 22, was successful
statewide, but more than two-thirds of Davisites
opposed it.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Appeal Begins In Gay Marriage Case
by Jan
Prout
365Gay.com Newscenter
Toronto Bureau
April 22, 2003
6:01 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Toronto,
Ontario) The Ontario Court of Appeal began
hearing arguments Tuesday about the
constitutionality of same-sex marriages.
The federal
government is challenging a lower court ruling
that found denying marriage to gay couples is
contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Last summer the
Ontario Divisional Court struck down the
prohibition against gay marriages. In its
ruling, the court said an 1866 British decision
which defined marriage as the union of "one man
and one woman" violated the Charter of Rights.
It gave the government two years to amend the
law or it would be declared void.
The decision was
appealed by the federal government.
"Marriage
embodies the complementarity of the two human
sexes," Roslyn Levine, a lawyer for the Attorney
General told the Court of Appeal.
"Marriage is not
simply a shopping list of functional attributes
but a unique opposite-sex bond that is common
across different times, cultures and religions
as a virtually universal norm. In effect,
marriage is not truly a common-law concept but
one that predates our legal framework through
its long existence outside of it."
The government
argued that same-sex couples are already getting
the same social benefits as married couples.
The federal
arguments left the eight same-sex couples
involved in the case angry.
"The government
is wasting millions of dollars to fight an
outdated ideal," Joe Varnel told reporters
outside the Toronto court.
"Full and equal
marriage is the only option that the government
has."
On January 14,
2001 Varnel and his partner
Kevin Bourassa were
married in a double ceremony at Toronto's
Metropolitan Community Church. The provincial
government refused to register the marriages
citing the federal definition of marriage. The
six other couples in the case were denied
marriage licenses for civil ceremonies.
Among those
couples are Michael Leshner, a 55-year-old
lawyer, and Michael Stark, 45, who works for a
graphics company. They have been together for 21
years and got engaged last year after the
divisional court ruling.
''It's about time
we made this life of sin legal,'' Leshner said
at a news conference in front of the courthouse.
''I want it once
and for all," he said. "The laws, politicians,
bigots, anyone who believes they have a right to
interfere with Michael and I and our right to
marry. That is what this is about - choice.''
"This marriage
case is of utmost importance to both of us
because it speaks to equality, dignity and
quality of life for us as individuals who
belong to the mainstream," said Barbara
McDowall and Gail Donnelly, another of the
couples involved in the case.
"If we want to
live in a world where we can marry the person
that we choose to love, then we must do whatever
we can to make that happen - and then we will
live in that world."
Laurie Arron of
national gay rights organization EGALE said that
Canadians know that legalizing gay marriage is
inevitable.
"It's ridiculous
to imagine that the moral judgments of others
should prevent homosexual couples from being
permitted to marry," Arron said.
EGALE has been
granted intervenor status.
"Denying same-sex
couples the freedom to marry is an antiquated
discriminatory rule that has no place in
contemporary Canadian society," said EGALE
lawyer Cynthia Petersen.
The Ontario
Appeal Court hearing is scheduled to last four
days.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Rare Presbyterian
trial ends with rebuke
Ahmar Mustikhan,
Gay.com / Planetout Network
Monday, April 21, 2003 / 05:33 PM
On Monday the Presbyterian court in
Cincinnati found a gay-friendly minister guilty
of violating its constitution and condemned his
act of marrying same-sex couples. It absolved
him of ordaining unrepentant homosexuals as
deacons and clergy, however.
In the first trial of its kind, Rev. Stephen
Van Kuiken, pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian
Church in Cincinnati, could have been removed or
suspended from the ministry but was only
rebuked. At least one member of the seven-member
court dissented on both counts, apparently
wanting a stiffer sentence.
On technical grounds, the court acquitted Van
Kuiken on another charge of ordaining
unrepentant gays as deacons and elders. It ruled
the governing body of the local church, not the
pastor, should be held accountable for any such
breach.
A defiant Pastor Van Kuiken said he would
appeal the decision. The pastor felt he and
others have been left in a state of limbo, as
the door for a harsher sentence in the future
has been kept wide open.
In a communication sent to the Gay.com/PlanetOut
Network, Van Kuiken said since the decision is
"contrary to the Scriptures, it is also
unconstitutional."
Making it clear he would continue ordaining
gays and marrying same-sex couples, Van Kuiken
explained, "These laws still exist as a
rationale for continued bigotry, discrimination
and abuse of gay and lesbian persons in our
society, because they state that their sexual
orientation is sinful and wrong."
A complaint was filed against Van Kuiken last
year after he made his views on the two issues
public.
"Rev. Van Kuiken is carrying on the work of
people like Martin Luther King, who stated that
one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly,
and with a willingness to accept the penalty,"
said Rev. Mel White, director and founder of
Soulforce, an interfaith organization devoted to
ending discrimination in places of worship.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has said a
theological task force was studying the
fidelity/chastity ordination standard and is to
report its findings and recommendations to the
church's General Assembly in 2006. More than a
dozen churches, including the Mount Auburn
Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, have publicly
defied the law.
Texas Senate Passes Gay Marriage Ban
by
365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 16, 2003
6:34 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Austin, Texas)
The Texas Senate has passed legislation that
bans the state from recognizing same-sex civil
unions or marriages.
The bill by
Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth would prevent
Texas from recognizing a civil union entered
into by people of the same sex in other states.
(earlier story)
The bill will now
will be considered by the House.
Texas already has
legislation banning same-sex marriages.
Gay rights groups
and Senate Democrats argued that the legislation
will encourage discrimination against gay and
lesbian couples.
"It's nothing
more than a slap in the face to the LGBT
community of this state," said Lesbian/Gay
Rights Lobby of Texas Executive Director Randall
Ellis.
Ellis says the
bill is a just variation on a familiar theme in
Texas politics. "The passage of DOMA by the
Texas Senate illustrates a fact that gays and
lesbians know all too well: Texas
discriminates," Ellis said.
"Gays and
lesbians are denied literally hundreds upon
hundreds of rights and privileges - everything
from tax exemptions to hospital visitation
rights," he added.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Texas Gay Marriage Ban Approved For Vote
by
365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 15, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Austin, Texas)
Legislation to bar the state of Texas from
recognizing same-sex civil unions or marriages
passed a key committee Monday and is now slated
for a vote on the Senate floor.
"The bottom line
purpose of the bill is to try to defend and
shore up the institution of marriage, which is
the fundamental basis on which this society is
built and it's been under significant attack
over the past couple of decades in particular,"
said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, who
sponsored the bill.
Wentworth said
there is a concern that Texas may be legally
required to recognize same-sex unions, such as
those created in Vermont. He said 36 other
states have passed similar legislation.
Lt. Gov. David
Dewhurst praised the bill.
"This is simply
ratifying what most Texans believe, that
marriage is an honored institution between a man
and a woman," Dewhurst said.
The vote on the
bill was along party lines with most Democrats
voting against it.
Sen. John
Whitmire, D-Houston accused Wentworth of using
the legislation for a political statement.
"Some people
would say this is just mean spirited," Whitmire
said.
Randall Ellis,
executive director of the Lesbian Gay Rights
Lobby of Texas, said the bill serves as a
reminder that lesbians and gays are treated as
second-class citizens.
"This does
nothing to improve the lives of Texans. It is
simply a slap in the face to gays and lesbians,"
Ellis said.
The approval
comes after Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
successfully petitioned a district judge in
Beaumont to reverse his decision granting a
divorce to a gay couple last month. (story)
The couple had a civil union performed last year
in Vermont.
Earlier this
month the House committee approved legislation
that would bar gays and lesbians from becoming
foster parents. (story)
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Connecticut rejects gay
partner registry
Michael
J. Meade,
365Gay.com
Thursday, April 10, 2003 / 04:35 PM
The Connecticut
Legislature's judiciary committee rejected on
Wednesday proposed legislation to extend
marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
The proposal
would have extended essentially all the rights
of marriage to gay and lesbian couples. If the
legislation had become law, it would have
established a domestic partnership registry
similar to a system created by the
California Legislature two years ago, but
would not go as far as Vermont's civil union
law.
Critics argued
that the bill was too sweeping and would have
become a catalyst for changing the state's
marriage laws.
"It seems to me
very unclear where this societal change will put
us in the next 10 to 20 years," said Sen. John
Kissel, R-Enfield, a staunch opponent of the
proposal.
The bill died on
a 26-16 vote, which came after nearly three
hours of debate.
"In my heart, I
believe people should have equal rights," said
Rep. Juan R. Candelaria, a New Haven Democrat.
But his constituents don't agree, he said. "I
was elected by those constituents to express
their (views)."
Much of the
debate centered not on civil unions, but
marriage. Gay and lesbian activists in the state
have repeatedly said they see civil unions as
only a stepping stone to full marriage rights.
Rep. Themis
Klarides, R-Derby, voted in favor of the measure
and advised her colleagues not to get too
fixated on the concept of marriage. She said her
gay and lesbian constituents told her they don't
care what it is called; they just want to have
the rights that married people do.
Sen. Andrew
McDonald, D-Stamford, who is gay and the
co-chair of the committee, observed that the
word "marriage" strikes an emotional chord with
most people. "Our job here today is to try to
talk about civil rights that can be afforded by
the state."
The panel also
considered and rejected several amendments,
including two expressly stating that Connecticut
only recognizes marriage between a man and a
woman.
In 2001, the
committee held an informal hearing on the topic.
Last year, the Legislature
approved a bill extending limited rights to
same-gender couples.
Gay Marriage Ban Closer To Vote
by
365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 6, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Austin, Texas)
Legislation that would prohibit Texas from
recognizing civil unions or marriages between
people of the same sex has been approved by a
key Senate committee.
The endorsement
by the Senate State Affairs Committee moves the
bill closer to a full vote on the Senate floor.
"The point of the
bill is to protect and defend the institution of
marriage in the traditional sense we always have
in the state of Texas, and that's between one
man and one woman," said its sponsor, Sen. Jeff
Wentworth.
Randall Ellis,
executive director of Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby
of Texas, called the bill ' frivolous'.
He said Texas law
already prohibits the state from issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples or
recognizing same-sex unions performed in other
states.
Wentworth's bill
also would prohibit legal protections, benefits
or marital responsibilities from being granted
to same-sex partners.
"This will not
change the lives in the short run of gays and
lesbians. We can't get married today; we won't
be able to get married after the governor signs
this bill," Ellis said.
But Wentworth
says Congress essentially invited states to pass
laws against same-sex marriages when it passed
the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
"Why would 36
states pass a similar law if it is unnecessary?"
he asked.
"People talked
about discrimination as though discrimination is
a bad thing. It is something we do all the
time," t he Senator said.
"We discriminate
in this state against people under 21 years of
age buying alcohol. I guess they could say we're
discriminating against them. The state has
decided it's in their best interest to not
purchase alcohol," Wentworth said.
The committee's
approval comes after Texas Attorney General Greg
Abbott successfully petitioned a district judge
in Beaumont to reverse his decision granting a
divorce to a gay couple last month. (story)
The couple had a civil union performed last year
in Vermont.
Last week House
committee approved legislation that would bar
gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents.
(story)
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Top Judge Calls For Gay Partner Law
by Peter
Moore
365Gay.com Newscenter
London Bureau
April 5, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(London) "We are
failing the family," says England's most senior
family court judge. In a lecture at King's
College London, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said
gay and lesbian relationships need to be
recognized by law and that the transgendered
should have the right to marry in their
corrected gender.
Dame Elizabeth said couples who could not marry
had no recourse to a system of law that would
protect them if they formed "partnerships,
sometimes lifelong, which in their turn create a
family structure".
Same-sex couples have no provision for pension
rights or division of assets after separation
other than the existing complicated law.
"The Government has announced that legislation
will be introduced to remedy this position," she
said.
"That is welcome news to all who feel, as I do,
that the present situation is a continuing
breach of the right of same-sex partners to have
a legal framework within which to make and to
maintain their family life."
She
also called for expanding the rights of the
transgendered who are also denied legal
recognition, even after surgery. "I believe we
are the only country apart from Albania which
does not provide for registration of change of
gender in such cases," she said.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Gay Marriage Hearings Called Forum For Hate
by Rich
Peters
365Gay.com Newscenter
Western Canada Bureau Chief
April 2, 2003
1:40 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Vancouver,
British Columbia) A parliamentary committee
looking into gay marriage took to the road this
week with its first stop out of Ottawa in
Vancouver.
Federal Justice
Minister Martin Cauchon asked the committee to
study the marriage issue after courts in Ontario
and Quebec ruled the ban on gay marriage was
unconstitutional and gave Ottawa two years to
rewrite marriage laws.
Cauchon told the
Commons committee on justice and human rights to
look at three options.
The first would
be to sanction same-sex marriages. The second
would see the government get out of the marriage
business and leave it to religious institutions.
The third option
would be to set up civil registries that would
recognize gay and lesbian relationships.
Gay groups in
Vancouver Tuesday told the committee that
nothing less than marriage is acceptable, a
refrain that MPs have heard from gay and lesbian
advocates since the hearings began in Ottawa.
Any name that
excludes same-sex couples from marriage as an
institution would be "second rate and not
equivalent," said Donald Meen, of Dignity Canada
when asked by Liberal MP Paul Macklin about the
the gay Catholic group's views on a name other
than marriage for such unions, but one that
would include all the rights of a heterosexual
marriage.
"To me there's a
sense of destruction here, potentially," The MP
from Ontario said, adding that the definition of
marriage has been built up over time and that
any changes could be ultimately damaging.
The inclusion of
same-sex couples in the current definition of
marriage would enhance it, Meen replied.
"This is a social
institution with tremendous value and there is
no equivalent to it, and I say it doesn't
destroy marriage in any way," he said.
Victor Wong, a
spokesperson for the Vancouver Association of
Chinese Canadians, told the hearing excluding
gay couples from the traditional definition of
marriage amounts to discrimination.
"The idea around
some kind of parallel system just doesn't work,"
Wong said. "Marriage is marriage."
But Darrel Reid,
president of conservative Christian group Focus
on the Family Canada, said the universal
definition of marriage should remain unchanged.
"Marriage from
the beginning of recorded history has been a
union of a man and woman," Reid said outside the
hearing. "It transcends time; it transcends
religion. It's about biology; it's not about
ideology."
Reid said it's
critical for society to continue to support
heterosexual marriage and encourage it to last.
The committee is
to present its recommendations to Cauchon next
month, but the hearings have been marked by what
Canada's national LGBT rights group Equality for
Gays and Lesbians Everywhere a free-for-all
forum for right wing extremists.
"It's
bone-chilling to hear what some people are
saying," said John Fisher, a lawyer and
spokesperson for EGALE.
He cited the
testimony last month from Jean Ferrari,
representing Canadian Christian Women
Organization for Life.
"In some
countries, homosexuality is considered to be a
grave evil. If anyone is caught in the act, body
parts are lopped off. It's a pretty powerful
inducement to abstain or leave the country if
one must have one's kicks," Ferrari said.
"In Canada we've
legalized this lifestyle, but thank God, bad
laws can be repealed."
Fisher said the
committee should be assessing how -- and not
whether -- the government should amend the
marriage laws.
Before preparing
its report the committee will travel to other
cities including Edmonton, Alberta; Moose Jaw,
Saskatchewan; Steinbach, Manitoba; Halifax, Nova
Scotia; Sudbury, Ontario; Toronto and Montreal.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Rebuked By State Texas Judge Dismisses Gay
Divorce
by
365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
April 2, 2003
12:02
a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Beaumont,
Texas) The on again off again divorce of a
Texas gay couple is now officially off. Tuesday
state District Judge Tom Mulvaney dismissed the
divorce filing of Russell Smith and John
Anthony.
Last month,
Mulvaney granted Smith, 36, and Anthony, 34, a
divorce decree, but Texas Attorney General Greg
Abbott intervened and said the court could not
grant a divorce where no marriage existed.
Bowing to pressure from Abbot, Mulvaney on
Friday set aside his decree and ordered a new
hearing for the couple. (story)
When papers were
refiled this week Mulvaney dismissed the case.
Smith and Anthony
were united in a civil union in Vermont last
year.
Smith, who
petitioned for the divorce, previously said
getting the divorce in Texas was expensive and
strenuous. But getting the union dissolved in
Vermont would have required Smith or Anthony to
live in that state for at least a year before a
final divorce hearing.
Smith said he had
to get a legal divorce for financial reasons.
The couple did not file joint income tax
returns, but they did have joint auto and life
insurance. The two also ran several businesses
together and the division of their assets and
properties was done by agreement.
Smith's attorney,
Ronnie Cohee, had argued at the original hearing
that even though Texas law refers to a husband
and wife when talking about marriage, state law
refers to "parties" when addressing dissolution.
Earlier this
month, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in
another case involving the state of Texas. That
one involves the 'Homosexual Conduct Law' which
prohibits gay sex. (story)
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
NJ Judge Limits Arguments In Gay Marriage
Suit
by Beth Shapiro
365Gay.com Newscenter
New York Bureau
April 2, 2003
12:02
a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Trenton, New
Jersey) A New Jersey Superior Court judge has
ruled that a constitutional challenge to the
state's ban on gay marriage will be limited to
the seven gay and lesbian couples challenging
the law and the state attorney general.
Conservative
family organizations and a number of state
legislators had sought to present arguments
before Judge Linda Feinberg opposing the case.
Feinberg ruled the groups did not have a legal
right to formally oppose the suit.
The groups had
told the court they doubted the state would make
a strong enough case to fight gay marriage.
Joseph A. Dorta, the lawyer representing the New
Jersey Family Policy Council, a conservative
group promoting what it calls traditional
families, said he is concerned the Attorney
General's office might alter its position if
there is a change in administration.
Several
lawmakers, including Sen. Gerald Cardinale
(R-Bergen) and Sen. Anthony Bucco (R-Morris),
co-sponsors of legislation that would ban
same-sex marriage, said they should be allowed
to intervene because a court ruling could
undermine their legislative authority.
In addition, a
lawyer representing two businesses maintained
that a ruling recognizing same-sex marriages
would have far-reaching economic consequences
for businesses and sought to enter the case.
David S. Buckel,
a senior staff attorney for the Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund, said:
"Discrimination in marriage should end." He said
the groups arguing against same-sex marriage do
not represent mainstream New Jersey.
Still pending
before Feinberg is a 42-page motion by the
Attorney General's Office asking Feinberg to
throw out the entire lawsuit. That motion is
expected to be argued in May.
If the case
proceeds and Feinberg rules the ban on gay
marriage unconstitutional, New Jersey would
become the first state to legalize gay marriage.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
British Military To Cover GLBT Families
Affected By War
US Military Spouses Ignored
by
Peter Moore
365Gay.com Newscenter
London Bureau
March 21, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(London) The
British military announced Thursday that the
partners of any gay and lesbian servicemembers
killed during the war in Iraq will receive their
military pensions and other benefits.
Under existing
legislation, only the legal spouses of military
personnel who die in active service are entitled
to a Ministry of Defense pension.
Under new rules
announced Thursday in London the government said
that heterosexual couples and same sex partners
will be offered full benefits when a loved one
is killed in "conflict".
The government
said that a pension will be awarded to partners
where there was a "substantial relationship" and
eligibility would be judged depending on a range
of criteria from financial interdependence,
children and shared commitments.
"The decision would be
based on a broad assessment of the substance of
the relationship and not all of these criteria
would need to be met for entitlement to exist,"
a statement from the Ministry said.
It will not, however, be
backdated to include military personnel who died
prior to the conflict in Iraq.
American
servicemembers have no such benefit said Steven
Ralls of the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network.
"A servicemember
can select anyone they chose to be the recipient
of a military insurance plan, but they must not
indicate they are a same-sex spouse or partner,"
Ralls told 365Gay.com.
But, same-sex
partners are not entitled to receive spousal
benefits from the pensions of men and women in
the military.
Ralls also said
that gay servicemembers can instruct the
military to notify their partner if they are
injured or killed in combat. But they must list
their partner as "a person of interest" not a
partner, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
As American
soldiers headed off to the war the spouses of
gay and lesbian servicemembers were forced to
remain in the shadows. (story)
While the United
States military does not permit out gays and
lesbians to serve in the military, the European
Union and Canada have no restrictions on
service. Canada included same-sex spouses in
military pensions several years ago.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Cincinnati
Minister To Be Tried For Gay Weddings
by
365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
March 28, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Cincinnati,
Ohio) A Cincinnati Presbyterian minister will be
put before a church court after performing
weddings for same-sex couples.
The highest court
of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has ruled that
ministers may bless same-sex couples’
relationships, but cannot marry them.
It will be the
first time the faith has put a minister on trial
for defying the church's ban on gay weddings.
The Rev. Stephen
Van Kuiken readily acknowledges that policies he
and his Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church
congregation have endorsed violate the
constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
He says, however, the issues are fairness to
gays and whether the church will welcome them
along with heterosexuals.
“These laws are
hanging over their head,” Van Kuiken, 44, said
Tuesday of the church rules. “They’re hanging
over my head. The effect is to keep these people
quiet, or to scare them away. It’s
intimidation.”
He also is
accused of violating the denomination’s laws by
ordaining as lay church elders and deacons gay
people who may be sexually active.
Van Kuiken said
he hopes his defiant stand will help bring about
change and greater acceptance.
Mount Auburn
Presbyterian Church has been ordaining gays as
elders and deacons since at least 1991 under Van
Kuiken’s predecessor, the Rev. Harold Porter,
who has retired but still preaches at the
280-member Cincinnati church. A complaint also
has been lodged against Porter.
Van Kuiken,
pastor for 31⁄2 years at Mount Auburn, is to go
on trial April 8 before the Cincinnati
Presbytery’s court.
If found guilty,
he could be reprimanded, temporarily suspended
and ordered to repent or removed from office. He
could appeal the ruling.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Canadian Tory Leadership Candidates Spar
Over Gay Marriage
by
Jean-Pierre O'Brien
365Gay.com Newscenter
Montreal Bureau
March 25, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Montreal,
Quebec) What started out as a dull debate
between the seven contenders for the
Conservative Party leadership turned into a
shouting match when the issue of gay marriage
came up.
Scott Brison tore into fellow MP Peter MacKay
for suggesting to a parliamentary committee that
legislating same-sex marriage is not a priority,
and that homelessness should be solved first.
"That would be like saying we can't give women
the vote until we eliminate unemployment,"
Brison declared. "We have to deal with more than
one issue if we're going to be in government."
MacKay made the comments at a parliamentary
committee looking into whether the government
should remove the ban on gay marriage. Current
federal law defines marriage as a union between
one man and one women.
Brison, who is gay, jumped on MacKay during the
debate, saying the government should register
domestic partnerships and allowing churches to
define marriage themselves.
At that point a third candidate, Craig Chandler
jumped into the melee. "I do believe in family
values," Chandler said, adding that he was a
conservative and a Christian, and could not
support that view.
That prompted a fourth candidate, Quebec MP
André Bachand to interrupt Chandler to question
him about gay rights in general.
Chandler snapped back: "Are you anti-Christian?"
Bachand retorted: "I'm a Catholic!"
Later, Brison said that the disagreement
highlighted the division on social policies
between the candidates, who largely agree on
economic issues.
"We have to be the party that defends economic
liberty and personal liberty," Brison said.
The Progressive Conservatives will choose their
new leader in June.
©365Gay.com
Ltd® 2003
Episcopal Bishops
Warn Churches Not to Bless Gay Unions
by Doreen
Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau
March 24, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Washington, D.C.)
A blue ribbon
panel of Episcopal
bishops is advising the church against blessing
same-sex unions.
The bishops say
Episcopalians, part of the worldwide Anglican
faith, are so divided on the issue of
homosexuality that churches should not fan the
flames by endorsing gay unions.
The group of six
bishops and seven theologians examined the issue
for 18 months. Their report will be presented
to the faith's triennial General Convention this
summer.
When the church
last met in Convention in 2000, delegates voted
to "support" lifelong, non-married
relationships, but took no official action on
ceremonies blessing gay unions.
The bishops'
report urges "the greatest caution" on the gay
blessings.
"Because at this
time we are nowhere near consensus in the church
regarding the blessing of homosexual
relationships, we cannot recommend authorizing
the development of new rites for such
blessings," the report said.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Italian Priest
Defies Vatican Ban On Gay Marriage
by Jon
ben Asher
365Gay.com Newscenter
European Bureau Chief
March 17, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Rome) A priest
in the northern city of Pinerolo near Turin has
defied a Vatican order that he leave the
priesthood after he performed a series of gay
marriage ceremonies.
Father Franco
Barbero says he will not resign and has no
intention of stopping gay and lesbian couples
from getting married in his church.
Gay marriage is
not legal in Italy, and the church forbids
priests from giving sacraments to non celibate
gays.
''My belief is
that the Church must give an equal welcome to
every form of true love. Gays are gay by the
will of God,'' Barbero, 64, said on the weekend.
And, he plans to
begin celebrating the weddings closer to the
Vatican. Barbero said he will go to Rome this
week to marry two lesbian couples.
Barbero was
accused of ''irregular liturgical practices''
but he says the Vatican was powerless to stop
him.
The priesthood is
in my genes, they can't take it away from me,''
he said.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Military Chaplains
Ready To Bless Gay Unions
by Ben
Thompson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Ottawa Bureau
March 17, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Ottawa)
Chaplains serving in the Canadian military may
soon offer religious ceremonies for gay soldiers
who want to formalize their unions with their
same-sex partners.
Although there is
no ban on gays serving in the Canadian military
the exact number is not known.
Some United
Church chaplains have already decided they will
perform the services if requested, a Church
spokesperson said. The United Church, the
largest Protestant denomination in Canada, has
been a longtime supporter of the rights of gays
and lesbians to marry.
Anglican
ministers are also considering offering the
services. Last year an Anglican diocese in
British Columbia voted to offer the blessings
and caused a reaction that reached to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Although the Canadian
Primate of the Anglican Church agreed with the
vote, a church synod asked other diocese to hold
back until a consensus was reached.
"I would dearly
love to be free to celebrate such ministry if
requested by a couple to do so," Major John
Fletcher, a senior Anglican chaplain, said
recently. But Fletcher said that he and fellow
Anglican chaplains have put off the debate until
the Church as a whole addresses it at a meeting
of its general synod next year.
A Defense
Department official said there is nothing
stopping a chaplain from officiating at the
union of a gay or lesbian soldier.
The Defense
Department would certainly not stand in the way
of a same-sex ceremony involving its personnel,
said Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Kettle, a spokesman
for the Chaplain-General's office.
The decision is
up to individual chaplains and their churches,
he said.
Meanwhile, the
federal government has authorized a small group
of Canadian soldiers to fight on the ground with
American units if the United States invades Iraq
— even if Canada does not technically join the
war. In addition, the Canadian navy will soon
have four ships in the Persian Gulf area, with
Commodore Roger Girouard commanding a
multinational task force of up to 20 ships
aboard the destroyer HMCS Iroquois.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Gay Marriage
Hearings 'Sham'
by Ben
Thompson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Ottawa Bureau
March 12, 2003
3:02 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Ottawa)
Canadian gay rights advocates say parliamentary
hearings to examine legalizing same-sex
marriages are tantamount to "gay-bashing".
Egale, the
national LGBT human rights organization says the
hearings have become little more than a forum
for opponents of gay marriage.
"This could well
shape up to be one of the largest gay-bashing
exercises in Canadian history," said Egale
executive director John Fisher.
"We've been very
disappointed in the committee to date."
The committee was
set up after courts in Ontario and Quebec ruled
the definition of marriage as a union between
one man and one woman is unconstitutional. The
courts gave Ottawa one year to amend the law,
but the cabinet was unable to reach a consensus
on how that should be done.
Gay and lesbian
couples already have status as common law
partners, but are seeking the right to marry.
Among the
possibilities the committee is considering are
granting gays and lesbians the right to marry,
creating a partner registry for civil unions, or
taking the federal government out of regulating
marriage altogether.
Several of the
committee members are already on record as
opposed to gay unions of any kind. One member,
Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, has said that changing
the definition of marriage could result in
making polygamy lawful.
The committee is
to present its report to the government this
spring, but before it does, it will travel
across Canada hearing people from 11 towns and
cities. While the committee will hold hearings
in Toronto and Vancouver, most of the sessions
will be in small towns such as Moose Jaw and
Steinbach, Man.
"It's the tone of
the debate," he said. "We've been called
immoral. There's a contempt of gays, of
lesbians," said Fisher.
Svend Robinson, a
gay member of the New Democratic Party and a
member of the committee has been critical of
presenters who like a Catholic Women's groups
called gay marriage "a travesty" and has several
times been admonished by the committee chair.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Battle Lines Drawn
In Gay Scots Civil Union Plans
by Peter
Moore
365Gay.com Newscenter
London Bureau
March 8, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Edinburgh)
Christian conservative groups in Scotland are
bracing for a major battle to prevent the
Scottish Parliament from passing legislation
giving gay and lesbian couples the same rights
as heterosexual married couples.
The Liberal
Democrats are expected to include in their
upcoming election campaign a proposal to allow
gays, lesbians and unmarried couples to register
their partnerships.
The Scottish
Executive is already in talks with the
government in London about joint legislation to
recognize gay couples. And, with an expected
Scottish coalition government made up of Labor
and Liberal Democrats, the issue is expected to
be included in legislation in the next
parliament.
Evangelical
Christians and the Roman Catholic Church are
threatening to "launch a Section 28-style
campaign" to prevent passage of any gay
legislation.
The two groups
led the offensive to preserve Section 28, the
law banning promotion of homosexuality in
schools.
Jeremy Balfour,
spokesperson for the Evangelical Alliance, said:
"This is another Section 28 for the next
government - in many ways it is an even more
important issue. To have a false image of
marriage would be a serious worry."
Balfour said the
Alliance intends to make gay unions a major
election issue. "We would be looking for
candidates to declare during the election how
they would vote on this proposal."
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Gay Divorce Texas
Style
by
365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
March 7, 2003
11:17 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Beaumont,
Texas) A Texas judge has signed divorce papers
for two men married in a civil ceremony in
Vermont. It is believed to be the first time
that a gay couple has been successful in having
their civil union terminated outside of Vermont,
the only state in the US which allows the
unions.
The Vermont
Legislature approved civil unions in 2000,
giving domestic partnerships many of the
benefits of marriage. Under the law at least one
member of a gay couple wishing to end their
union must reside in the state for a period of
one year.
Beaumont, Texas
residents Russell Smith, 26, and John Anthony,
34 were united in a civil union ceremony in
Vermont in February 2002.
Smith filed for
the divorce saying it was for " financial
reasons." He said it was impossible for him to
move to Vermont to officially end the
relationship. The couple did not file joint
income tax returns, but they did have joint auto
and life insurance. The two also ran several
businesses together and the division of their
assets and properties was done by agreement.
Texas law does
not recognize gay and lesbian couples, but
Smith's lawyer, Ronnie Cohee, said that because
the Vermont union was legally binding, it needed
to be legally dissolved. She said her legal
justification relied on the U.S. Constitution's
full faith and credit clause, which requires
states to recognize marriages from other states.
Cohee also said
that even though Texas law refers to a husband
and wife when talking about marriage, state law
refers to ''parties'' when addressing
dissolution.
Judge Tom Mulvaney agreed and signed the divorce
papers.
Similar attempts to dissolve Vermont civil
unions in Connecticut and New York have failed
with judges ruling that since those states do
not recognize the unions it is beyond their
powers to terminate them.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Bill Would Ban
Same-Sex Marriage
by
Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
March 6, 2003
5:45 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Boston,
Massachusetts) A group of Massachusetts
lawmakers will try to ban same-sex marriages if
the state's highest court rules that under
existing law gay marriage is legal.
Massachusetts
does not define marriage in its laws, and
lawyers for a group of same-sex couples is
arguing before the Supreme Judicial Court that
the state is illegally denying gays and lesbians
the right to marry. (story)
Democratic Rep.
Philip Travis and 13 cosponsors have filed a
proposed amendment to the state constitution
that would ban same-sex marriages. A similar
amendment was killed by the Legislature last
year through a procedural maneuver that avoided
a vote.
House Speaker
Thomas M. Finneran, also a Democrat, says that
if the court rules that gay couples have a legal
right to marry, he would support the amendment
which specifically defines marriage as the union
between a man and a woman.
''I have voted,
and would continue to vote, to restrict marriage
to one man and one woman,'' Finneran told The
Boston Globe on Thursday. ''The traditional
definition and understanding of marriage is the
definition that I'm most comfortable with.''
State
constitutional amendments must advance through
two consecutive legislative sessions, and then
must be approved by voters in a statewide
election.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
High Court Hears
Gay Marriage Case
by
Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
March 4, 2003
4:55 p.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Boston.
Massachusetts) Justices of the Supreme
Judicial Court grilled lawyers representing
seven same-sex couples challenging Massachusetts
ban on gay marriage.
"Why should we do
something that virtually no other state has
done?" Justice Judith A. Cowin asked attorney
Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and
Defenders.
"Because it's the
right thing to do," Bonauto responded.
Bonauto told the
court that since state law does not explicitly
bar gays and lesbians from marrying it is
unconstitutional to prevent gays from being
granted marriage licenses.
An attorney for
the state was also peppered with questions.
Assistant Attorney General Judith S. Yogman
defended the state's ban before the court,
basing her argument on the link between marriage
and procreation.
"The optimal
setting for procreation and child-rearing is a
family with a parent of each sex," Yogman said.
If procreation is
the central purpose of marriage, Chief Justice
Margaret Marshall said, could the state then
order a couple who did not have children to
divorce after 10 years?
If the court
rules that gays and lesbians have the right to
marry, Massachusetts would become the first
state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.
Utah, Nebraska and South Dakota have all filed
briefs with the court supporting the state.
Among the dozens
of briefs supporting the gay and lesbian couples
are 10 from the top law firms in New England.
The court gave no
indication when it would issue a ruling.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Top Boston Lawyers Support Gay Marriage
by
Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
March 1, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Boston,
Massachusetts) Boston's top 10 law firms are
supporting a suit against the state of
Massachusetts by seven gay and lesbian couples
who want to get married.
The couples argue
the right to marry is a choice protected by the
Massachusetts constitution.
The Supreme
Judicial Court is scheduled to hear oral
arguments March 4 in the case. Attorneys for the
firms have filed amicus briefs supporting the
right of gays and lesbians to marry.
The case is the
first of several across the US, including one in
New Jersey
(story) and will be closely watched by both
sides in the marriage issue.
That the most
power law firms in New England are backing gay
marriage is not going unnoticed. Their
involvement is a far cry from cold shoulder gay
activists got a decade earlier.
At that time they
could not get a single large law firm to assist
them when they wanted to sue former Gov. Michael
S. Dukakis over his policy that banned gay and
lesbians from becoming foster parents.
``We needed a big
law firm, but we couldn't get anyone to help
us,'' said Gary Buseck, an attorney and
executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocate's &
Defenders, whose attorneys brought the suit to
be heard on Tuesday. ``Now I look down the list
of our amici in this case and there is Foley,
Hoag and Ropes & Gray and Bingham McCutchen and
the bar associations . . . I just thought well,
well, how the world has changed.''
Buseck said that
while he believes the presence of more gay and
lesbian lawyers in positions of power at major
firms is one reason for the support, the fear of
scaring off conservative clients is less of a
factor than it once was.
``These are
really the premier firms in town. I think 20
years ago you might have had a partner thinking,
`Oh my God, what are our clients going to think
having us out there on this ``homosexual''
issue?' But they don't seem to see this as a
danger for them business-wise anymore. They
aren't worrying that their clients are going to
walk away from them because they are supporting
this,'' Buseck said.
Peter Supcofska,
a Bingham partner who is a co-author of the
firm's amicus brief, said that when a firm
claims to support civil rights it means nothing
if it isn't backed up.
``People here at
this firm came forward and said, `Let's do
this.' Certainly here at Bingham, civil rights
issues are important, whether you are gay or
Latino or African-American, and that support for
those issues are intrinsic to what being a law
firm is all about,'' he said.
Added Buseck:
``These firms say that diversity is important,
and this is an example that some of them are
willing to put their money where their mouth
is.''
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Belgium approves same-sex marriage
Gay.com
/ PlanetOut.com Network
Thursday, January 30, 2003 / 04:03 PM
On Thursday,
Belgium became the second country in the world
-- after the Netherlands -- to legally recognize
gay marriages.
According to the
Associated Press, lawmakers in the House of
Representatives approved the measure by a 91-22
vote, after the bill had already passed in the
| 
