> About Us
> Our Products
> Mission Statement
> Upcoming Events
> Reviews
> Links
> Awards
> Guestbook
> Contact Us
> FAQ's
> Home

Click here to add TwoBrideWeddings.Com to your Favorites List.


 
 
 
 News
  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