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
Senate.
"It makes it
clear that any enduring and loving relationship
is appreciated in the same way in our modern
society," said Kristien Grauwels, a Green Party
member in the ruling coalition.
The new law,
unlike its counterpart in the Netherlands, does
not allow same-sex married couples to adopt
children.
"It still was a
step too far for several parties," Grauwels
said, referring to the other political groups in
the government coalition.
Like other
European nations, Belgium had already granted
limited legal protections to same-sex unions,
including tax and property rights. The new law's
expansion of those rights was celebrated as a
"breakthrough" by many.
Gay Marriage Law
Not Urgent Tory Leadership Hopeful Says
by Ben
Thompson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Ottawa Bureau
January 30, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Ottawa) The man
who says he will lead Canada's beleaguered
Conservatives into the 21st century says
same-sex marriage should not be a priority.
Peter MacKay, one
of the contenders to take the reins of the party
in this spring's leadership convention, is a
member of a parliamentary committee set up to
examine whether the federal government should
legislate an end to the ban on gay and lesbian
marriage.
The Nova Scotia
grilled Pierre Turcotte of Statistics Canada
about the number of gays who would take
advantage of marriage if it were offered.
After Turcotte
told the committee the last StatsCan census
showed there are 68,000 gays and lesbians living
in common-law relationships, MacKay suggested
the number, less than 0.5 per cent of the
country's population, is too low to be
important. Last year was the first time a
question about gay and lesbian relationships was
included in the census.
StatsCan is now
attempting to determine for the first time the
total number of gays and lesbians there are in
Canada.
(story)
"How many
homeless people are there in Canada," MacKay
demanded.
"In my mind, it
comes down to a simple matter of priorities,"
MacKay said in an interview later. "I would
suggest that homelessness is a bigger issue, as
one example. I walked by four people in sub-zero
temperatures on my way here this morning."
The committee was
set up to examine gay marriage after courts in
Toronto and Montreal rules the definition of
marriage as "a union between a man and a woman"
was unconstitutional. The rulings are being
appealed, but the government is under pressure
by gays and lesbians to change the law..
MacKay has made
his position clear from the start. He maintains
the definition of marriage should include
opposite-sex couples only. He said he does not
oppose registering same-sex relationships as
"domestic partnerships" or civil-registration
ceremonies for gay couples. However, he said, he
does not think it is appropriate for the federal
government to use the law to force churches to
recognize same-sex marriages.
"I think it would
cause an uproar to force religious organizations
to recognize this," he said.
"In the minds of
Canadians, when it comes down to priorities,
there are issues that must register higher. I
don't think this stuff even ranks in the Top
10."
Egale, Canada's
national GLBT rights organization has expressed
concerns about the makeup of the committee.
(story)
Following
Mackay's comments Egale executive director John
Fisher said: "We have some concerns about the
committee process as a whole, because for us,
this is a question about basic human rights, not
a ... numbers game."
"No one would put
a figure on how many people have a disability to
determine whether their rights are protected.
It's ultimately about the government doing the
right thing," Fisher said.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Cal To Consider Sweeping
Domestic Partner Bill
by Mark
Worrall
365Gay.com Newscenter
San Francisco Bureau
January 27, 2003
12;02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Sacramento, California) The California
legislature will get its first look this week at
sweeping reforms that would give gay and lesbian
couples most of the same rights as married
couples. It stops just short of legalizing gay
marriage, and is based on groundbreaking law in
Vermont.
The legislation was prepared by Democratic
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg of Los Angeles and
the gay and lesbian caucus in the Assembly.
It would rewrite dozens of existing laws
covering everything from community property and
child support to filing joint state tax
returns.
California already has a domestic partner
registry, but the new law would expand on that.
"There's virtually no area of civic life that
wouldn't be impacted," said Kate Kendell,
executive director of the National Center for
Lesbian Rights.
Gov Gray Davis signed the state domestic
partner registry bill in 1999. The Democratic
governor also signed a bill last fall that
allows domestic partners to sue for wrongful
death and make medical decisions for
incapacitated partners.
But, the new bill makes no mention of the
phrase "civil unions."
"We have stepped back and reconsidered," said
Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. "We
think we will have greater success with the
concept of domestic partners, as opposed to the
idea of civil unions."
Polls show that Californians are still
opposed to granting gays and lesbians full
marriage rights, but support the idea of
legalizing their relationships.
There is no indication if Davis would sign
the new legislation, or if it has enough support
in the Assembly to ensure passage.
Similar legislation died in the Assembly last
year.
©365Gay.com
Ltd® 2003
Churches Prepare
For Gay Blessing Ceremonies
by Rich
Peters
365Gay.com Newscenter
Vancouver Bureau
January 21, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Vancouver,
British Columbia) The first blessing ceremonies
for gay couples in Vancouver's Anglican diocese
are expected in the next few weeks.
At least four
parishes in the diocese of New Westminster want
to proceed immediately with union rites for gays
and lesbians -- a first in Canada, and the
source of an international controversy in the
worldwide Anglican Communion.
"I have
indications that there will be several more
parishes within the next few weeks," Bishop
Michael Ingham said following a special meeting
of the diocese's governing body, or synod.
The synod voted
last summer to allow churches in the diocese to
hold the ceremonies. Following the vote eight
parishes said they wanted withdraw from the
diocese, which covers a wide stretch of
southwestern British Columbia including the city
of Vancouver.
Bishop Ingham
delayed implementing the blessings last fall, in
light of an effort to reconcile with the
dissident parishes. Both sides in the dispute
are meeting with the aid of a mediator to see if
they can resolve the impasse splitting the
Anglican community.
"I am trying to
be very patient. I am trying to keep the door
open as long as I can. I am trying to say to
these eight parishes, 'We do respect your
conscience. We are not forcing you into
anything,' " Bishop Ingham said.
"But at the same
time, I also need to say to them, 'You cannot
hold the church to ransom.' "
A spokesperson
for the eight parishes said yesterday that if a
same-sex blessing actually occurs, it would
create an enduring schism.
While the
blessings have the support of the Anglican
Primate of Canada, the head of the worldwide
Anglican Church, Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, is under attack from conservative
groups within the church for being too liberal
in his views on gays in the faith.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Marriage
Committee Biased Gays Allege
by Ben
Thompson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Ottawa Bureau
January 22, 2003
12:03 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT |
(Ottawa) A
parliamentary committee holding hearings into
whether gays and lesbians should be given the
right to marry in Canada has been accused of
bias.
Groups
representing more than a dozen gay couples who
have challenged the constitutionality of the
federal government's definition of marriage say
the committee has already made up its mind.
The three
committee leaders are all on record opposing gay
marriage.
Liberal chairman
Andy Scott, vice-chairmen John McKay, also a
Liberal, and Chuck Cadman, a Canadian Alliance
MP have all said that marriage should remain an
institution reserved exclusively for
opposite-sex couples.
Scott, a former
solicitor general, has said in the past that
there should be a "firewall" around the
traditional definition of marriage.
The committee has
begun hearing presentations from groups on both
sides of the marriage issue. This week the
committee asked for funds to allow it to travel
across the country because they believe they
will encounter more opposition in rural Canada
than among the "chattering classes" in Ottawa,
said McKay.
The committee is
expected to release its official report in
April.
Last year courts
in Montreal and Toronto declared the federal
definition of marriage as a union between one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all others
to be unconstitutional and gave the government
one year to amend the law. The government is
appealing the decisions in a case expected to
wind up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Last week Liberal
leadership hopeful Sheila Copps, the Heritage
Minister, called for the legalization of gay
marriage, the only candidate to succeed Prime
Minister Chretien to do so.
©365Gay.com
Ltd® 2003
MCC Calls For
Valentine's Day Of Protest
by Mary Ellen Peterson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Los Angeles Bureau
January 17, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Los Angeles,
California) Rev. Troy D. Perry, the moderator
of the Metropolitan Community Churches is
calling for Valentine's Day protests over the
inability of gays and lesbians to marry.
The veteran civil rights leader said that on
February 14, as soon as the Los Angeles
courthouse opens at 9 am he and his partner of
18 years, Philip Ray DeBlieck, will be standing
in line for a marriage license.
"And I'm encouraging thousands of gay and
lesbian couples across the US to do the same,"
said Perry, whose churches perform more than
6,000 same sex weddings each year. None of the
marriages are recognized in the US.
"It's time to move the debate on gay marriage
forward. It's time for equality. It's time for
the US to catch up with Sweden, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Germany, France and other countries
that are providing marriage rights for gay
couples."
Perry suggested GLBT couples to go to court
houses and municipal offices throughout the US
on February 14, Valentine's Day, and apply for
marriage licenses.
"For me it's not a religious issue, it's a legal
issue. It's a matter of equality and simple
justice. If my country is to live out its
promise of equality, all laws must be applied
equally, and that includes our marriage laws."
"Imagine the power that will be unleashed if
thousands or tens of thousands of gay and
lesbian couples apply for marriage licenses on
the same day," said Perry.
Perry said he expects to be rejected when he
applies for the license. "Well, realistically,
the odds are that it will be turned down. And if
so, I'll tell them, 'Thank You and we'll be back
next Valentine's Day to apply again.' Then I'll
step outside and talk to the press about
equality and fairness for God's gay and lesbian
children. And I will be back next year."
Last year, MCC Toronto pastor Brent Hawkes
performed a double wedding ceremony for a gay
and a lesbian couple. When the Province of
Ontario refused to register the marriages, the
two couples went to court winning a decision
that Canada's ban on gay marriage was
unconstitutional. The federal government is
appealing the decision.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Gay
Marriage Endorsed By Canadian Liberal Leadership
Hopeful
by
Ben Thompson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Ottawa Bureau
January 16, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Ottawa) Heritage Minister Sheila Copps
Wednesday threw her hat into the ring to succeed
outgoing Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
In making the announcement Copps said she
supports the right of gays and lesbians to
marry. She described equal marriage rights for
same-sex couples as "an issue of fundamental
human rights".
"Finally, a prospective leader who is willing to
lead," said John Fisher, the Director of
Advocacy for Egale, Canada's national GLBT
rights group.
"For too long, government has abdicated
responsibility to the courts on these basic
issues of equality, while our leaders have
mumbled about needing further direction.
Minister Copps has demonstrated leadership and
integrity in articulating a clear vision of a
Canada in which the human rights of all will be
respected with equality and dignity."
The winner of the Liberal Party leadership race
will automatically become Prime Minister.
Copps is considered a dark horse candidate. So
far, the front runner, former Finance Minister
Paul Martin has been silent on the marriage
issue, continually ducking reporters' questions.
"For a man who wants to lead this country, he
has been embarrassingly silent on this
fundamental human rights issue," said Fisher
"Does he support our right to equality, or not?
Whether or not he is committed to human rights
and the principles of the Constitution,
Canadians are entitled to know where he stands."
Monday, another dark horse candidate, Industry
Minister Allan Rock, announced he was
withdrawing from the race saying Martin had too
wide a lead to beat.
Last summer Rock announced he supported gay
marriage rights.
A parliamentary committee is conducting hearings
across Canada to gauge public support on the
marriage issue. Last year courts in Toronto and
Montreal ruled the prohibition on marriage was
unconstitutional and gave the federal government
one year to amend the law. Both rulings are
under appeal.
The ruling Liberals will elect a new leader at a
party convention this fall.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Colorado Bill
Would Create Civil Unions
by 365Gay.com
Newscenter Staff
January 14, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Denver, Colorado) A bill that would allow
civil unions for gay and lesbian couples was
introduced in the Colorado legislature Monday.
If passed, the bill would give gay couples the
right to jointly adopt children in addition to
health-care benefits, and partner inheritance
rights.
Rep. Tom Plant says his legislation would cover
about 500 legal rights enjoyed by married
couples under Colorado state law.
"I think the people of Colorado are ready to
support this - I think a majority of people
believe in the promise of American equality and
want to see this happen," Plant said.
The bill drew immediate fire from conservative
Christian group Focus on the Family which is
based in Colorado Springs.
Civil unions between people of the same sex
amounts to a "radical human experiment," said
FOTF's Glenn Stanton.
"With two males, one of those parents cannot be
a mom - they just cannot be a mom," Stanton
said. "And if the kid is being raised by two
moms, as much as those two parents love that
child, and they do love the children in most
cases, one of those parents cannot be the dad,
no matter how hard they try."
Stanton said the group will fight the bill
"tooth and nail."
Stanton said Focus would rally its members to
contact state lawmakers and urge them to oppose
Plant's legislation.
But, Plant says he believes the bill has a
reasonable good chance of passage.
"That Focus on the Family is opposed to these
unions is irrelevant to the discussion because
it doesn't change the fact that people are
homosexual and that they deserve the same rights
as everyone else," he said. "The Focus on the
Family position would just deny people rights."
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Utah
reps push for Marriage Amendment
Christopher Lisotta, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com
Network
Tuesday, December 10, 2002 / 04:12 PM
Utah state Rep. Tom Hatch has asked legislative
attorneys to draft a letter of resolution to
support a ban on same-sex marriages in the U.S.
Constitution.
Hatch, the Republican majority leader in Utah's
House of Representatives, is seeking to help
revive a proposal made in May 2002 by U.S. Rep.
Ronnie Shows, D-Miss., along with 11 other
co-sponsors, including Rep. Chris Cannon,
R-Utah.
The proposed Marriage Amendment, HJ 93, states,
"Marriage in the United States shall consist
only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither
this Constitution or the constitution of any
state, nor state or federal law, shall be
construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon
unmarried couples or groups."
National gay groups like the Human Rights
Campaign (HRC) have called the Marriage
Amendment a thinly veiled attempt to roll back
hospital visitation rights, health benefits and
anti-discrimination protection under the guise
of "marriage protection."
"While we currently do not think that this
proposed amendment has enough political muscle
behind it to be a real threat," HRC said in
response to HJ 93, "it is important for our
community to be aware of the widespread movement
across the country against same-sex marriage."
The proposal died in Congress, but Hatch's move
indicates that the co-sponsors will be
reintroducing it when they return for the new
session in January.
Cannon said recent decisions by judges in
Massachusetts and Vermont have compelled him to
again propose the amendment. "Many state courts
have begun the process of defining marriage
through judicial decree, oftentimes going
against the will of the people," Cannon told the
Salt Lake Tribune.
"This judicial activism will be forced upon all
the remaining states, including Utah,
undermining the traditional definition of the
family," he said.
Amending the U.S. Constitution is a huge
undertaking that involves a two-thirds vote in
both the U.S. House and Senate, as well as
ratification by at least 37 state legislatures.
The Constitution has been amended only 27 times,
and the most recent amendment (which was first
proposed in 1789) took effect in 1992.
Kevin Cromer, president of the gay Log Cabin
Republicans, was one of many conservative
critics of HJ 93, noting that amendments are
designed to expand liberties and not meddle in
issues that have long been considered the
purview of the 50 states.
"There are no constitutional amendments that
specifically deny rights to individuals," Cromer
said to the Tribune. "It's bad use of the
Constitution. That's not what the Constitution
is for."
British government plans partner rights
Gay.com U.K.
Friday, December 6, 2002 / 04:31 PM
Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are set to be
offered some of the same rights as married
couples, a British government minister indicated
Friday.
Barbara Roche, the minister for social exclusion
and equalities, said there was an "extremely
strong case" for allowing same-sex couples the
chance to register their relationships.
Roche said the partnerships would not be
equivalent to marriages, the Associated Press
reported.
Lord Tope, a Liberal Democrat leader on the
London Assembly, welcomed the government's
announcement.
"This is an overdue step towards a more
civilized legal arrangement for people in stable
gay relationships," he said. "Civil partnership
law is well established on the continent of
Europe, in Canada and in some states of the
USA."
London mayor Ken Livingstone also backed the
plans, which reportedly will be drafted into a
position paper by summer as a first step toward
possible legislation.
More than 350 gay, lesbian or unmarried
heterosexual couples have signed the London
Partnerships Register, which was introduced by
Livingstone in September 2001 but does not
confer legal benefits.
The Christian Institute spoke out against the
government proposal.
Director of the Christian Institute, Colin Hart,
said the plan did equate gay relationships with
marriage, whatever ministers said. "The
government has said this is not 'gay marriage.'
But the fact is, these plans do equate gay
liaisons with the honorable estate of
matrimony."
Zurich voters approve gay marriage rights
Gay.com U.K.
Monday, September 23, 2002 / 04:28 PM
On Sunday, voters in Zurich, Switzerland,
approved giving marriage rights to same-sex
couples.
The measure extends to gay and lesbian couples
the same rights and benefits as heterosexual
married couples, including tax, inheritance and
social security.
To qualify for the benefits, same-sex couples
must live in Zurich canton and formally commit
themselves six months in advance to running a
joint home and to providing each other with
mutual support, reported the Associated Press.
"For the lesbians and gays of the canton of
Zurich, this historic yes signifies that the
state no longer considers them second-class
citizens," said the statement by the Swiss
Lesbian Organization; Pink Cross, the Swiss
Organization of Gays; and FELS, the Friends and
Parents of Lesbians and Gays.
Gay activists are now pushing for the similar
rights for same-sex couples throughout
Switzerland.
Same-Sex Marriage
Planetout.com
Last updated: 2002-12-10
While the Netherlands remains the only country
where same-sex couples have
the same legal rights as heterosexual
married couples, other areas -- most notably
Germany and
Zurich, Switzerland -- are beginning to
follow suit by granting some forms of legal
recognition.In July, a
Canadian court ruled that it was
unconstitutional to not recognize same-sex
marriages, and it ordered Parliament to redefine
"marriage" within two years. Ontario's leader
said the province
will not appeal.Of course, the European
decisions will not have any immediate legal
impact in the United States, where marriage
remains off limits to gays and lesbians.
However, court battles seeking freedom to marry
in
New Jersey and
Massachusetts could make legal history.In
October 2001, California
Gov. Gray Davis signed a law that makes the
state second only to Vermont in terms of the
number of rights granted to registered same-sex
couples.Vermont is the only state in which gays
and lesbians have access to a marriage-like
institution. Last year,
a law took effect there that allows same-sex
couples
to register their "civil unions" with the state
and to receive most of the same rights and
responsibilities as married couples. Legislators
in other states -- including New York -- may be
considering similar bills. But "civil unions"
may be more difficult to institute elsewhere
since Vermont was only able to pass the law
because of a December 1999 Vermont Supreme Court
ruling deeming it illegal for gay and lesbians
couples to be treated differently from
heterosexual ones. Despite the challenges in the
U.S., two-thirds of Americans believe gay and
lesbian marriages will be legalized within the
next 80 years.
Connecticut Moves Closer To Civil Union
Legislation
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
January 7, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Hartford, Connecticut) A committee of the
Connecticut legislature has finished hearing
testimony and forwarded its report on same-sex
unions to the General Assembly.The Judiciary
committee made no specific recommendations.
Among the deputations it heard were groups
calling for legislation granting gays and
lesbians the right to marry. Other speakers at
three public hearings last year recommended
civil unions similar to those in Vermont.
Conservative Christian groups urged the
committee to maintain the status quo.The
committee was instructed last year by the
Assembly to prepare a report outlining the
options for recognizing gay relationships after
it passed a compromise bill falling short of
legalizing gay couples.The legislation did not
mention same-sex couples specifically, but
allows a person in Connecticut to legally
designate another person to make medical
decisions and end-of life choices. It also
allows for visits in nursing homes and requires
employers to allow emergency phone calls from
the legally designated person. The committee
report will be tabled in the Assembly but it is
unknown when legislation stemming from it will
be presented in the form of a bill. Connecticut
is one of three states looking at recognizing
gay couples.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
3 States To Explore Civil Unions In 2003
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
January 6, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Boston, Massachusetts) Legislatures in three
states, two of them in New England, will be
presented this year with bills that would
recognize gay and lesbian relationships. In
Massachusetts, just days after the death of a
proposed anti-gay marriage constitutional
amendment, a bill to create gay civil unions
has been presented.The bill is similar to the
law passed in Vermont in 2000, that grants gay
and lesbian couples virtually all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage that are granted by
state law."It's time, maybe overtime," said Rep.
Alice Wolf, D-Cambridge, who is sponsoring one
of the bills. "Increasingly people are
recognizing and honoring the fact that there are
gay couples with families in our community. It's
very important to recognize that."
Domestic partner Legislation has won approval in
the Mass. Senate at least three times, but has
never come up for a vote in the House. Given
this history, some advocates don't believe the
civil union bills have a chance of passing.
A second bill, which would legalize gay marriage
is also expected, but few believe it will garner
enough support to come to a vote.
"You have to start somewhere," said lesbian Sen.
Cheryl Jacques. "A discussion around civil
unions will educate the public about the
struggles gay families have when it comes to
issues of health care, estate planning, adoption
-- all the things that affect family life."
In Connecticut, the Judiciary Committee is
expected to present a partnership union bill to
the House this session. The committee has
already begun hearing deputations.
In Colorado, Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland, will
propose a civil union act. Gay marriages are
banned in Colorado. Plant said he wants to
create a way for gay and lesbian couples to
share the responsibilities and obligations of
marriage.
"It's an opportunity for the Legislature to live
up to the Pledge of Allegiance — 'liberty and
justice for all,' not just words for reciting,"
Plant said.
And, in a separate measure, Rep. Alice Madden
says she will introduce the bill allowing
same-sex adoptions. It's probable that a bill
banning such adoptions will be also introduced.
The House approved the ban last year, but the
Democratic-controlled Senate killed it. Now,
Republicans control the Senate.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Canadians Equally Divided On Gay Marriage, Poll
Shows
by Jan Prout
365Gay.com Newscenter
Toronto Bureau
January 4, 2003
12:01 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Toronto, Ontario) Canadians are almost evenly
split on legalizing gay marriage and allowing
gays to adopt according to a new national poll.
The survey, taken for Maclean's Magazine and
Canwest Global Communications showed forty-nine
per cent of the respondents approve of giving
gays and lesbians the right to marry, while 46
per cent said they should not be permitted to
marry. Five per cent said they didn't know.On
the question of adoption: 48 per cent said they
supported allowing gay couples to adopt, while
46 per cent said they were opposed; six per cent
said they didn't know.The poll was conducted by
Strategic Counsel, a Toronto-based polling
firm."I think it also shows that we've changed
our attitudes toward what 'a family' is,"
pollster David Plaxton said."It's one of those
issues that's been debated now for a number of
years, so we're seeing Canadians are becoming
more comfortable with the idea," added fellow
pollster Michael Sullivan.The highest support
for gay marriage was in Quebec where 65 per cent
endorse it. Quebec currently has Canada's most
inclusive civil union law.The second greatest
support was in British Columbia where 54 per
cent said the supported it; followed by Atlantic
Canada at 50 per cent, Saskatchewan-Manitoba at
42 per cent, Alberta at 41.The least support was
in Ontario, at 40 per cent.The survey found
women were far more accepting of gay marriages
than men. Fifty-five per cent of women supported
it compared to 39 per cent of men.The poll comes
at a time when the federal government is under
mounting pressure to change marriage laws. The
government is challenging an Ontario court
ruling that declared the ban on gay marriage is
unconstitutional. This winter a parliamentary
committee is examining the law and is expected
to report back to the Justice Minister by
spring.The survey, based on telephone interviews
with 1,400 adult Canadians, was carried out
between Nov. 1 and Nov. 12, 2002. It is
considered accurate within 3.1 percentage
points, 19 times out of 20.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
Newspaper Chain To Publish Gay Announcements
In All Papers
by Mary Ellen Peterson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Los Angeles Bureau
January 10, 2003
12:02 a.m. ET/+5GMT/-3PT
(Los Angeles, California) A chain of mid sized
newspapers has become the first publisher to
order all of its papers to print gay and lesbian
commitment announcements.
Freedom Communications Inc began the
announcements in its flagship paper, "The Orange
County [Calif.] Register," and this week
extended the policy to all its papers.
The company owns more than thirty newspapers in
11 states, including "The [Alton, Ill.]
Telegraph," the "Brownsville [Texas] Herald,"
and "The [Panama City, Fla.] News Herald."
"This is another huge step for gay and lesbian
couples," said Joan M. Garry, executive director
for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation (GLAAD).
Since August 2002, GLAAD has kept a tally of
newspapers that print same-sex union
announcements, and Freedom Communications'
decision brings GLAAD's list to 181 papers.
"Freedom Communications deserves to be
congratulated and should serve as a role model
for other companies," said Garry.
In August 2002, GLAAD launched its Announcing
Equality project, a yearlong campaign to double
the number of newspapers in the United States
that print same-sex union announcements. The
goal was met just a few months later.
©365Gay.com Ltd® 2003
|