NY State takes another step forward

NY State Gives Gays a Say in Burying Partners



(Albany, New York) In the closing hours of the 2005 session, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that provides domestic partners, both same-sex and opposite-sex, the ability to make decisions about the funerals of partners.

It allows New Yorkers to designate a person to carry out their wishes for the disposition of their body after they die. Additionally, the legislation extends domestic partners the same priority status in decision making as surviving spouses, creating historic significance for New York's LGBT community.

“For too long in New York, same-sex partners who live together and care for each other have been legal strangers when it comes to this critical moment,” said Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s statewide LGBT civil rights organization.

The 'death care proxy' is a simple, free, proxy form authorizing the appointment of an agent, space for special directions, to be signed in front of two witnesses, similar to a health care proxy. In instances where no one has been designated via a written proxy, a priority list of persons, including domestic partners, are established in statute to determine who has the right to control the disposition of an individual's remains.

"Over the years, scores of GMHC's clients have had severe difficulty with these issues," said Ana Oliveira, Executive Director of Gay Men's Health Crisis.

"They wanted to make arrangements but until this legislation no legal mechanism existed to ensure their wishes were followed. Because this bill gives domestic partners the same recognition as surviving spouses, we believe the many painful circumstances we have seen over the years can now be avoided."

The legislation received bipartisan support. The Democratic-led Assembly passed it by a vote of 94-25 and the Republican-led Senate passed an identical version by a unanimous vote of 58-0.

In defining a domestic partner, the bill provides for three different methods. For same-sex couples who are able to register their partnership with a government entity, the bill recognizes registration as sufficient proof for control of remains authority. Being formally recognized as a beneficiary or covered under a partner’s employment benefits or health insurance also provides this authority. If none of these methods is available or has been utilized by a same-sex couple, providing documents similar to what the private sector and New York State require for an employee to obtain domestic partner health insurance is also acceptable proof of a partnership.

When passing the bill, both the Assembly and the Senate agreed to further modify the third prong of this definition to have it conform more closely to the one used in the hospital visitation bill passed in 2004 where the focus was on demonstrating mutual dependence and the totality of circumstances that show mutual dependence. Both chambers are expected to adopt this change later in the year before the bill is sent to the Governor.

Passage puts legislators in line with New Yorkers on the issue. In a statewide poll conducted in March by Global Strategy Group for Pride Agenda, 83% of New Yorkers said providing this right to same-sex partners was important. Support crossed party lines with 89% of Democrats, 81% of Independents and 76% of Republicans believing control of remains authority is an important right that should be provided.

"Same Sex America"

Last night, Showtime premiered a documentary called Same Sex America, which chronicled the journey toward same-sex marriage in Massachusetts after the landmark ruling in November, 2003 by the state supreme court.

This documentary featured people on both sides of the issue -- REAL gays and lesbians with families who contemplated marriage, and finally took that giant leap. It also features those who oppose same-sex marriages, even those whose children are gays or lesbians.

One such young lady, attending a rally for same-sex marriage tells the camera/reporter that her parents are there, too...on the "other side." She loves her parents but the issue is so divisive as to tear families apart. A clip shows Dick Cheney being interviewed prior to the recent presidential election, seeming to support Dubya's call for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, yet at the same time proclaiming his love and support for his lesbian daughter. Politics or family? Tough choice to make.

Protestors with signs reading "Let the People Vote" gave me pause. If we allow THEM to vote on whether *I* can get married to my partner, shall we allow all citizens to vote on who else can and can't get married? Shall we negate the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia and put that concept to a vote via a constitutional amendment? Shall we vote on whether the mildly retarded or brain-injured should be allowed to marry and procreate? Shall we vote on prohibiting senior citizens from remarrying because it's clearly just a sham to defraud good taxpayers like ourselves out of more Social Security benefits?

One young man relates his father's opposition to his marriage, expressed to him just before his wedding. The young man says that his father indicates that he has an issue with same-sex marriage but can't express what the issue is or where it comes from. I believe that this truly represents the feelings of many who oppose same-sex marriage -- people, as a whole, don't adapt to change well. And, when you can't wrap your brain around the whole homosexuality concept, it's hard to accept that kind of change. I understand that but, where I draw the line at compassion or empathy is where they've drawn the line. They don't understand, yet they don't SEEK FURTHER UNDERSTANDING. They just go with their lack of understanding, embrace it, and accept THAT as reality.

And then there's the man holding a sign (which I couldn't determine it's message) who insists that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "you have to be sick to want to let a man marry a man." He clearly doesn't know why he opposes it, and it was evident that the *ICK* factor is what puts him on the side of the opponents of same-sex marriage.

One couple, in the original 7 couples that filed the lawsuit against the MA Dept. of Health, has been together for more than 30 years. They own a business together and one of them had some severe health problems. This was what drove them to seek recognition of their relationship, right now, and in preparation for their eventual demise. This story was reminiscent of the first segment of If These Walls Could Talk 2, where one partner died and the other was left with nothing but her grief.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it bothers you to call it marriage, then call it purple crunchy peanut butter if you want, as long as I can pass OUR home on to my spouse after my death, without her having to incur a large tax burden. Let her make the decision to remove me from life support, or sign for a risky surgery that can potentially save my life. Let her live WITHOUT fear of ending up in the street because the loss of my income upon my death made her unable to support herself any more. I don't seek your approval or endorsement of my relationship with my partner. All I ask is that you stop attacking us, let us live in peace, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have. No more, no less.

Canadian Parliament Votes Today

At around 8:00 PM Eastern time, the Canadian Parliament will vote on legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the entire nation.

Canada's minority Liberal government said it had to produce legislation permitting gay marriage after courts in eight of the country's 10 provinces ruled that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional because it violated Canada's charter on rights and freedoms.

Of course, the Conservative Party and some church groups are opposing the legislation, claiming that it's an "attack on christianity and organized religion." I find it ironic that they fail to see preventing same-sex marriage as an attack on individuals and families, and contrary to the teachings of Christ. Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

Two pieces of news out of Canada

It seems that Canada is taking a leadership role in GLBT rights that most countries will take decades to catch up with (if they catch up at all).

____________________________________________

Canada Expected To Pass National Gay Marriage Bill Next Week
by Canadian Press

Ottawa) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's Commons corps dusted off a rarely used procedural tactic just before midnight to bamboozle furious Conservatives and pass contentious Liberal-NDP budget amendments late Thursday night.

The immediate result was the stifling of any threat of a summer election and an acceleration of the vote on same-sex marriage. That vote could occur as early as Monday.

The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget.

They compared their Liberal, NDP and Bloc opponents to crooks, Satan and Hollywood homicidal maniac Hannibal Lecter.

By contrast NDP Leader Jack Layton stood triumphant in the Commons while his jubilant troops tossed shredded paper and applauded one of the biggest coups in their party's history: approval of their $4.6 billion budget deal with the government.

``There's been so much name-calling and finger-pointing here that the key for us was just to get something done,'' he said of his deal.

``We've been months here without much to show for it and finally we have a positive budget.''

The NDP budget deal, struck this spring when the Liberals desperately needed allies in Parliament, erased corporate tax cuts and replaced them with $4.6 billion for housing, the environment, education and foreign aid.

The realization of what had occurred only dawned on the Tories as they gazed around the shuttle buses that normally ferry MPs off Parliament Hill and realized there wasn't a Liberal in sight.

Every available Liberal MP was cloistered in the Commons lobby waiting to spring into a vote to cut off debate. The Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats made extraordinary use of a rule allowing for cutting off debate on the budget if they agreed the Conservatives were being obstructionist.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper poured scorn on the alliance.

``When push comes to shove the Liberals will make any deal with anybody,'' Harper said after he was forced to rush back for a midnight vote. ``And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find.''

Though the Bloc stood with the Tories in the midnight budget ballotting, the Liberals still mustered five more votes than the Tory-Bloc alignment. Several Conservative MPs were absent.

The Liberals were taking a monumental gamble. A loss on the vote would force the prime minister to dissolve Parliament and call a summer election.

But Liberal strategists were confident they had caught the Conservatives unawares and decided to risk their government for a decisive victory.

``I hope they can count,'' Liberal MP Shawn Murphy said of Liberal strategists as MPs milled around before the vote.

Polls have suggested for almost two months now that an election would see the Liberals returned with a minority mandate. Privately, several Conservative MPs were hoping for an ``honorable loss'' on the budget vote to avoid an election that could have cost them seats, particularly in their Ontario beachhead.

The Tories, who had boldly predicted they could topple the Liberal government on the budget vote, were suddenly complaining they had members missing.

A few Conservatives were missing from their seats in an earlier vote Thursday evening. More could been seen racing back up Parliament Hill when news broke of the impending budget showdown.

They reacted with unfiltered rage.

Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay described his foes as a menage a trois between separatists, socialists and power-hungry Liberals.

Liberals claims of making the minority Parliament work was ``all just one big, fat stinking lie'' and then went further, comparing the Liberals to one of Hollywood's most heinous homicidal cannibals.

``We have to start thinking that Hannibal Lecter is running the government and they'll do anything they have to do to win.''

Tory MP John Reynolds was ranting about the Liberals jumping ``in bed with the devil'' - the Bloc Quebecois.

Liberals could barely contain their glee in response.

``Its not surprising that Hannibal Lecter should spring to mind for MacKay given the growing number of Conservatives who believe the party should soon eat its own leader,'' said Scott Reid, the prime minister's spokesman.

__________________________________

Gay Marriage Legal In 9th Canadian Region
by Derwin Parsons 365Gay.com Atlantic Canada Bureau Chief

(Fredericton, New Brunswick) Canada's Maritime province of New Brunswick has become the latest region where the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been struck down.

In a written ruling Thursday Judge Judy Clendenning ruled in favor of four same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.

The couples sued the provincial government arguing that its refusal to grant them marriage licenses is a violation of the Canadian Constitution.

"There's no discrimination more oppressive than discrimination by a government on its citizens," lawyer Alison Menard, told Clendenning in oral arguments last week.

In her ruling Clendenning said the definition of civil marriage would have to be changed from a lawful union between a man and a woman, to a lawful union "between two persons."

"What it means is that anybody that meets the definition of capacity to marry is able to go and get a marriage license," Menard told the CBC.

"So in this particular circumstance, couples of same gender will be able to obtain marriage licenses and celebrate marriages."

A bid by conservative religious groups to be heard in the case was rejected. Clendenning ruled that they weren't bringing anything "new or unique" to the table other than trying to make same-sex marriage a "morality" issue.

The ruling leaves only two provinces - Prince Edward Island and Alberta - and two territories - Nunavut and The Northwest Territories - where same-sex couples cannot marry.

Oregon Contemplates Civil Unions

(Salem, Oregon) The Oregon Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and to ban discrimination against gays in jobs, housing and public accommodations.

The legislation was approved last week by the Senate Rules Committee, the last major hurdle before going to the full Senate for a vote.

The bill could create a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

The bill also adds sexual orientation to a law that forbids discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race, color, religion and several other factors.

It has the support of Gov. Ted Kulongoski. The measure is expected to pass the Democratically controlled Senate but is expected to receive tough opposition in the House which is controlled by Republicans.

Opponents of the legislation contend contradicts the will of Oregon voters, who passed a state constitutional amendment in November that prohibits gay marriage.

"We think the bill could affect every marriage statute," said Tootie Smith of the Oregon Family Coalition, which opposes the bill.

She said consequences could include forcing employers to provide health coverage and other costly benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

But Rebekah Kassell of Basic Rights Oregon, the state's major gay rights lobby, said nothing in the measure requires employers to provide such benefits.

Massachusetts allows gay marriage, while Vermont grants civil union rights and Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Domestic partners in California have all rights and responsibilities of marriage conferred by the state except the ability to file joint income taxes.