The end

I've decided that it's time to end this part of my blog. Our Journey is mostly over, except for the appeal, so any new updates will be on the main blog.

News Updates

I guess it's been a while since I posted here. I've had a lot going on in my personal life, so I hope y'all will forgive me.

Without further adieu...

Hevesi Plans “Vigorous Defense” of Retirement System Recognition of Canadian Same-Sex Marriages After Conservative Group Files Lawsuit

State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi said today that he would undertake a strong defense of the State Retirement System’s recognition of Canadian same-sex marriages after the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against the Comptroller’s office to halt the practice.

The Comptroller’s office administers the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS), which includes 334,000 retirees and 648,000 current employees. In response to an October 2004 inquiry from a state employee who was contemplating marriage in Canada to his same-sex partner, it was determined that such marriages would be recognized by the Retirement System under the principle of comity, a legal doctrine which has been followed by New York State for many years.

Surviving spouses of NYSLRS retirees can potentially receive certain benefits that are not provided for non-spousal partners: An accidental death benefit awarded in certain situations and a cost-of-living adjustment to monthly pension payments.

“We plan a vigorous defense because the law is clear: In New York State, we recognize marriages that have been conducted in Canada in accordance with Canadian laws – and that now includes same-sex marriages,” Hevesi said. “I have for many years believed that lesbians and gay men should have the right to marry in New York. But our October 2004 decision was a strictly legal determination based upon statutes and case law, not on my personal opinion.”

ADF brought the suit in State Supreme Court in Albany County. The named plaintiffs in the case are four residents of Westchester County. According to its website, ADF provides case funding, strategy and coordination, attorney training, and litigation to oppose efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, to keep abortion legal and other issues.

The NYSLRS includes state employees and retirees as well as employees and retirees from local governments throughout New York State, not including New York City. The State Comptroller is the sole trustee of the NYSLRS and the $140 billion Common Retirement Fund.

Click here for the October 2004 letter from the Retirement System to the state employee who was contemplating marriage in Canada to his same-sex partner, in which the determination that such marriages would be recognized by the NYSLRS is outlined.

This is the retirement system that I am a part of and, in 2004 when Mr. Hevesi announced that Canadian marriages would be recognized for this retirement system, we were all jubilant.

The ACLU (NYC types) is contemplating dropping our case for fear of "making bad law" if we lose. I reminded them that all the rulings the Lovings received in their case prior to the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia was "bad law" as well. But if we just retreat for fear of creating "bad law," then how do we get the bad laws changed?

If you ask me, this case against Hevesi and the NYS Retirement System could generate "bad law," which will have serious implications for all GLBT members of the system.

And then these nutcases divert the blame and attention to us, saying that "Christianity is under attack." No, it's the other way around -- Christianity is attacking us. Or rather, some folks that forgot what REAL Christianity is are attacking us.

New "Trend" for Homosexuals

(New York City) An organizer for the conservative Renew America is under fire for linking homosexuality with infant pedophilia.

"The newest thing in Chicago, it's becoming a trend, and you're gonna find this hard to believe...sex with infants," Guy Adams told an Internet radio show hosted by fellow conservative Stacy L. Harp.

Adams (pictured) offered no evidence to back up his claims of infant pedophilia.

He appeared on Harp's program on Wednesday to discuss the recent Gay Games in Chicago and embarked on a nearly 30 minute conversation with Harp to attack gays.

"It's not enough that they have...you know when you engage in perversion, and homosexuality is perversion, we don't hate the gays mind you, we don't hate them, we hate what they're doing...pretty soon that perversion is like addiction, it's not enough, so you need to graduate to something else. You need to move on. So now they're having sex with animals, a small group that's getting bigger, sex with infants, sex in the street in Chicago out in the open, it's just getting more and more perverted."

Adams dismissed the contributions of GLBT people to society by saying, "what contributions, AIDS, pornography?"

He also referred to gay people as "a very angry and violent group when confronted with the truth."

Renew America is run by Alan Keyes, the conservative talk show host who attempted to run for the Senate from Illinois.

An advocacy group that counters right wing misinformation campaigns called for Keyes to fire Adams.

Truth Wins Out executive director Wayne Besen called Adams remarks on the program "a new low in gay bashing."

"The slurs by Adams are a shameful attempt to dehumanize an entire community and he has taken anti-gay propaganda to a disgraceful nadir," said Besen.

"These remarks are intended to incite hatred and Alan Keyes should make it clear that Renew America does not support such rhetoric by immediately distancing the group from Adams."

Keyes has not responded to the demand for Adams' firing.

Last year Keyes' daughter came out (story). He has refused to discuss publicly his estrangement from Maya Marcel-Keyes but he has not shied away from attacking gays.

In March 2005 he told a St. Augustine, Florida audience that allowing a judge to rule that same-sex couples can marry is a form of tyranny.

But, his most incendiary remarks came at the Republican National Convention when 365Gay.com commentator Michelangelo Signorile interviewed him for his Sirius radio show. (story)

Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Signorile then asked Keyes, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Illinois, whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

It's this type of bullshit that causes the dull-witted homophobic bigots to take baseball bats to the heads of innocent gays that are walking down the street, minding their own business.

If this isn't inciteful language, then it damned well should be, and should be punishable under the hate crimes laws.

Fuckin' putz.

Decision is in

Well, the "Have Bullshit Judge Will Travel" Phenomenon came to a theater near me. Our ruling is in. No big surprise that the ultra-conservative judge would rule against us, but I love the fact that they have to support their decisions in writing. Check it out:

MartinezDecision.doc

We have 35 days to file an appeal.

Have judge will travel

Apparently the same idiots that made the New York ruling taveled to Washington to deliver that ruling as well...

Brings to mind an image of a bumper sticker I saw that said "Arguing with them is like running a race in the Special Olympics. They might win, but in the end, they're still retarded."

(Olympia, Washington) The state of Washington's ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 5 - 4 split decision the justices ruled that only opposite-sex couples are biologically capable of having children and the legislature acted reasonably and in the best interests of children.

The court did, however, say that the legislature could repeal DOMA and pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington," the ruling said.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

In a dissent, Justice Bobbe J Bridge said that " if the DOMA is really about the 'sanctity' of marriage, as its title implies, then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief. If the DOMA purports to further some State purpose of preserving the family unit, as the plurality would interpret it, then I cannot imagine better candidates to fulfill that purpose than the same-sex couples who are the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions."

Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004. Two lower courts ruled that the state law barring gay marriage was unconstitutional and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005. (story).

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the same-sex couples had argued that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional - pointing to a 34 word clause in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

LGBT civil rights groups were quick to denounce the ruling.

"The American family is strengthened when the legal responsibilities of marriage which protect children, stabilize homes and secure relationships are provided equally to all couples," said Jo Wyrick, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director. "Washington State has an economic and social interest in promoting the stability of the family, and it is stunning that the Washington State Supreme Court would base its ruling on personal opinion rather than on law."

Had the court struck down the existing law it could have been more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex." (story)

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February. (story) Garden State Equality said today's ruling in Washington will have no effect on the New Jersey case.

"On LGBT rights as well as on other social issues, New Jersey law has long been different from the laws of other states" said the organization's chair Steven Goldstein. "Additionally, New Jersey courts have been among the most fair-minded in the country, from allowing same-sex couples to adopt jointly to holding that the Boy Scouts may not discriminate against a gay scoutmaster.
A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. (story) The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

Decision in Washington Marriage Case Due Today

(Olympia, Washington) A nervous countdown has begun as same-sex couples, gay foes, and state legislators await this morning's Washington state Supreme Court expected ruling on marriage.

At issue is a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004 and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005.

The case hinges on how the nine justices interpret 34 words in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The court could throw out the state's law limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, uphold the existing law or say that the issue should be determined by the legislature.

If the court strikes down the existing law the result could end up being more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law. If the court hands down a ruling favorable to gay couples the state could see thousands of same-sex couples from across the country heading to Washington to wed.

The announcement that the court would issue its ruling this morning was made Tuesday in a short statement by the justices.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February.

A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

Editorial on that HORRIBLE NY Ruling

Horrible Judicial Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage in New York
by Matthew Rothschild

Equality took one on the chin Thursday.

The decision by New York State’s highest court not to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples was pathetic, so backward and irrational was the reasoning.

The main argument was that heterosexual marriage is better for the kids.

Here are the exact words: “Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.”

Since when do state supreme court justices rely on intuition?

And the logic of the court’s decision is to accord lesser rights to divorced parents or those who have lost a spouse, since, as a consequence, their kid “will not have, before his or her eyes, every day” that living model of idealized masculinity and femininity. And what, pray tell, are these models?

There are crude gender stereotypes lurking between the lines of this decision.

What’s more, doctors who deal with kids all the time have rebutted the court’s central claim. “The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual,” the group stated in February 2002.

In fact, it is in the interests of the child, the pediatricians said, that same-sex couples be accorded legal equality. “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said. It supports “the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and the welfare of their children.”

New York’s highest court has fundamentally misread what a child really needs. Not a set of Ken and Barbie doll mom and dad, but loving, caring parents who are a constant, trustworthy presence.

This is not a chromosomal issue.

To reduce it to that is to mistake genitals for parental skills.

Matthew Rothschild has been with The Progressive since 1983. His McCarthyism Watch web column has chronicled more than 150 incidents of repression since 9/11.© 2006 The Progressive

Arguments for Summary Judgment

Well, our case was argued to a judge on Thursday, July 13th, in a motion for summary judgment. The facts are not in dispute, just the law.

So the county attorney tells the judge that, while we were married in Canada, we don't have a "real" Canadian marriage because we don't actually live in Canada.

With that in mind, I'm thinking I shouldn't have had to pay all that money for a divorce in this country because my ex and I were married in Okinawa, Japan and, after all, since we weren't actually LIVING there, it wasn't a real Japanese marriage anyway. His argument continued to be that a) we don't have a "real" marriage and b) since the Court of Appeals ruling last week, the case had no business even being heard. This guy is really a putz!

Here's the news article (which I've chopped up to eliminate my own name, Lisa's name, and my employer's name).

(July 14, 2006) — A judge reserved decision Thursday on a lawsuit brought by a [my employer] employee over the extension of health care benefits to her lesbian partner.

After listening to arguments from lawyers on both sides, state Supreme Court Justice [judge's name] said he'll issue a written decision in a lawsuit filed 18 months ago against the college by [me].

The lawsuit, which argues that [employer] discriminated against [me] based on her gender because it refused benefits to the female partner she was married to, while routinely giving health benefits to heterosexual married couples, is the first of its kind filed in [my] County.

[Lisa and I] were married in Canada in 2004, three years after their relationship was formalized in a civil union in Vermont.

In 2004, [I] sought to have [Lisa] included in her health care coverage. [Employer], however, said they couldn't grant the request because the [employer's] contract with the Civil Service Employees Association, which covers [me], didn't address benefits for domestic partners.

[I] sued in January 2005. But a new contract between the [employer] and the union, which took effect Jan. 1, 2006, extended benefits to employees' same-sex partners.

Lawyer [my lawyer], who represents [me] in a lawsuit brought on her behalf by the New York Civil Liberties Union, asked [the judge] for a judgment that New York recognizes the validity of marriages solemnized in other countries.

Although the state Court of Appeals ruled July 6 that the state constitution provides no rights for same-sex couples to marry, [my lawyer] said that ruling doesn't block [the judge] from finding that the college should have recognized the Canadian marriage.

[Putz lawyer], a deputy county attorney, said [employer] acted on a good-faith basis because coverage to same-sex partners wasn't in the union contract. The issue now is moot, he said, because the new contract allows coverage.

What has been hammered and hammered and hammered into this putz's head (seemingly to no avail) is that the previous contract contained NO LANGUAGE that would enable ANY spouse (same or opposite gender) to be placed on the benefits package, yet the employer routinely offered those benefits to opposite gendered married couples as a matter of policy. The discrimination entered when they refused to allow it for me, stating that the contract didn't allow it, even though they conceded that the contract didn't specifically allow it for opposite gendered spouses, either.

Later they tried to hide behind DOMA, which is for federal benefits only.

I think that this judge will rule against us, as he's ultra conservative, although his body language changed from folded arms sitting back in his chair, to leaning forward in his chair and engaging my lawyer in conversation and points of law. It's sort of what we expect and sort of what we've been hoping for, so that the case can make it to the state level (same level that issued such a terrible ruling last week).

And, given the mindset by the 4 judges that voted against marriage equality because of the need to procreate, we can argue that I've been there, done that, and have done my part in procreation for this nation and that, like the 58 year old woman that works for me who recently remarried, I should have the same rights to marry after having raised my children as she does, since we're both post-menopausal and can't bear children any more either. (By the way, Lisa is medically unable to bear children, so does that mean she couldn't marry a man, too?)

We expect a ruling within the next couple of weeks, I guess.

When it comes in, I'll post it here.

Crushing, Disappointing Defeat in NY

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that the state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages as a constitutional issue, and such law should be left to the legislature. However, in part of the ruling, the issue of comity is discussed (that is, recognition of marriages outside the jurisdiction).

The other side in our case has already filed for a dismissal of the case.

Click on the title of this post for the news article.

More later.

ACLU/GVCLU Town Meeting Tonight

Tonight is the annual town meeting for the Genesee Valley Civil Liberties Union. They have asked Lisa and I to join two other folks they represent and have a "sit down" with their members, and the public at large that may attend.

There could be "hostiles" there, we're told. I told Lisa that I didn't see the point in engaging any hostiles other than to politely answer their questions and not debate the issue itself. That's what the legal team is for.

The idea is to discuss our case on a broad term, and how it's affected us and how we see it affecting others on the road behind us.

I'm really hoping that my lawyer will be there. I'd like very much for Lisa to meet him. I've even enlisted his services on a paying basis to help out with some of the bullshit my father left behind. He's a good guy. Hey, what straight guy do you know that is married, and a HUGE fan of The L Word?

Did I wake up in Communist Russia?

This is America, right? Where we have freedom of speech (no matter how woefully ignorant that speech may be sometimes) and the ability to think freely?

(Salt Lake City, Utah) A conservative political action group that regularly fights LGBT issues has asked Utah's Attorney General to investigate a suburban school for allowing a student to publish two pro-gay articles in a student newspaper.

On Nov. 17, when a Gay-Straight Alliance formed at Lone Peak High School in Highland, about 25 miles from Salt Lake City, the student run newspaper, The Crusader, ran two news stories on the GSA - one pro, one con.

The story supporting the organization was written by student Sarah Brimhall. The article opposing it was penned by Elsie Graham, the daughter of Stephen Graham, president of the Standard of Liberty Foundation.

Then on May 15, Brimhall wrote an article on human papilloma virus for the paper. Human papilloma virus can be spread by sexual contact.

In her opinion piece she wrote that teaching abstinence is not enough to prevent the spread of HPV.

"The promotion of abstinence is placed above the prevention of a disease that claims thousands of lives each year,'' she wrote.

Graham and his group say the two stories by Brimhall violate a Utah law that prohibits schools from allowing any activity that results in students revealing information concerning their sexual behavior, orientation or attitudes and a law that requires schools stress abstinence and not advocate homosexuality or sexual activity outside of marriage.

"Sex activists are targeting kids,'' Graham told the Associated Press. "They know that high school newspapers can be highly effective carriers of anti-parent, pro-sex propaganda. School administrators are either complicit or clueless.''

Principal Chip Koop defends the student articles.

"We've had the Alpine School District advise us on where lines are and what we need to be careful about, so we try to do our best to do that, and at the same time allow students some freedom to investigate topics that are important to them,'' he told the AP.

Graham also has asked the the state Office of Education to investigate.

Carol Lear, director of school law and legislation at the state Office of Education, said she does not plan to investigate the articles. There has been no response from the Attorney General's office.

I read a quote from the HRC newsletter that struck me:

“As you all know, I don't believe in discriminating against anybody, but when it comes to traditional marriage, I draw the line.” – Sen. Orrin Hatch

Am I incorrect in interpreting, based on this exact quote, that Mr. Hatch DOES believe in discriminating when it comes to homosexuals being allowed to marry? He supports discrimination?

Who in their right mind would want a lawmaker representing them that supports discrimination against ANYONE for ANY reason?

The HRC has an excellent advertisement against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Check it out here.

June 5th is when the Amendment comes up for vote in the Senate. If you oppose this amendment, call your senator, write your senator, bombard your senator with your wish that they vote "No" on this discriminatory amendment.

Let's get America back from the radical right and the religious nut-jobs like Falwell, Swaggart, Santorum, Hatch, Robertson, and Dobson.

Remind your senator that the war in Iraq continues to drain our resources. Remind your senator that while we are getting gouged for gas, the oil companies are making billions of dollars in profits. Remind your senator that there is a health care crisis in this country. Remind your senator that there are critical services that are being lost in budget cuts because of the enormous expenditures of government at higher levels. Tell them THAT is more important than worrying about who's doing who and how.

You can't hide what's wrong

I'd have to believe that there comes a point when even the best magician can no longer use smoke and mirrors to hide the real problems. Corruption in government, health care, war, gas price gouging, etc.

(Washington) New polls show that using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue may not work for Republicans in this fall's mid term election.

A Peter D. Hart poll shows that a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage is at the bottom of voter concerns. Surveys taken for the major networks show that immigration reform and rising gas prices are key concerns.

Only conservative religious groups seem focused on the proposed amendment - and they are threatening to desert the GOP for not passing the measure.

The Hart survey, taken for the Human Rights Campaign last month, before immigration reform and gas prices hit the headlines, and released Friday shows that only 18 percent of perspective voters felt the marriage issue should be a priority for Congress.

The poll showed that the top concerns were affordable health care (55 percent), dealing with Iraq (55 percent), passing new ethics/lobbying laws (25 percent) and passing an amendment banning flag burning (20 percent).

"The Federal Marriage Amendment consistently ranks dead last on a list of voters priorities but that won't stop Congress from using this discriminatory amendment as a political ploy going into the elections," Jay Brown, Human Rights Campaign spokesperson told 365Gay.com.

"It's critical that fair-minded voters speak out," said Brown. "Our polling shows that when voters move on these issues, it's toward fairness, not away from it. It's critical to make that point clear to Congress."

Opposition to the proposed amendment was strongest among Democrats. Sixty-one percent of respondents who identified as Democrats oppose the amendment, while 49 percent of independents and 20 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Despite calls for the amendment by Catholic Church leaders a majority of Catholic voters say states should make their own marriage laws - 53 - 37 percent.

The Hart poll also found growing support for some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples with 25 percent supporting marriage, 40 percent for civil unions and 33 percent believing there should be no legal recognition.

This picture says it all!

999

YAY!

Dubya is now into triple digits for number of days left in his administration. As of today, it's 999 days.

Can't wait for double digits.

Gay Agenda Misplaced, Feared Lost

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender political organization is facing harsh criticism from other gay rights groups over the apparent loss of the 2006 Gay Agenda.

HRC spokesperson, Steven Fisher, broke the news yesterday at a press conference in New York. “We had this year’s final gay agenda drafted. We sent one of our interns to make copies, and he inadvertently left it on a crosstown bus on his way to Kinkos.”

The highly sensitive document, a political playbook of sorts for homosexual activists, was to be distributed to a select group of high-ranking gay rights leaders next month at the annual Lavender Law conference and Tea Dance.

When asked why HRC kept no backup copies, Fisher went on the defensive. “You can’t have multiple copies of the Agenda just floating around. As in prior years, we maintained only one copy of the 2006 Agenda to make certain it didn’t fall into the wrong hands. Obviously, conservative Christian groups would love to get an advance peek of what we’re up to. Secrecy is vital! Our continued, successful assault on traditional family values depends on the element of surprise.”

Fisher closed yesterday’s press conference with assurances that steps were being taken to rectify the situation. “HRC takes full responsibility for the Agenda’s loss. The intern has, of course, been shot. Also, we’ve made repeated calls to New York Transit Authority’s Lost and Found department.”

But Fisher added that since the binder containing the Agenda has not been turned in as yet, “we are appealing to the homosexual bus-riding community to be on the lookout for it. It’s in a vinyl Hello Kitty Trapper Keeper. If anyone sees it, please contact HRC immediately.”

Scalia = Asshole

How can someone with obvious prejudices be allowed to continue to sit on the highest court in the land, and still be considered "unbiased" and intrepreting the constitution?

(Washington) A tape of a speech given earlier this month by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has drawn the ire of LGBT civil rights activists who worry the landmark high court ruling on sodomy could be revisited.

Scalia rarely speaks to the media and seldom allows the press into speeches he gives but a recording of a March 8 address at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland was obtained by CNN.

In one portion of the speech to law students at the university Scalia brings up the issue of homosexuality.

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

He also told the students that foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

Earlier this month, the governor of South Dakota signed a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. It is widely expected that the will be appealed, opening the way for the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade.

A similar scenario could also send sodomy back to the high court.

In 2003, in a 6 - 3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned laws against sodomy, saying that states cannot make laws regarding the private sexual conduct of Americans.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

With the high court more conservative than it was three years ago, LGBT leaders are worried the court may reverse itself.

"Justice Scalia stubbornly refuses to see that all Americans have a right to liberty and privacy under the law," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"Justice Scalia was dangerously out of step with Americans in 2003 when the Supreme Court decided this question and he remains so today.

"This is just the latest example of why it's so critical that fair-minded Americans think of the Court when they head to the ballot box. With the Supreme Court tipping further to the right, these sentiments could one day become reality," said Solmonese.

NY Marriage Law Gets Another Step Closer to Ruling

(New York City) A third case by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry is a step closer to New York's highest court. An appeal was filed in a midlevel court on Tuesday on behalf of the so-called Nyack 10.

Among the 10 couples is Nyack Mayor John Shields and his partner.

In 2004 the couples sought marriage licenses at the Orangetown Town Hall. When they were turned down they sued. A lower court judge dismissed the case saying marriage should be decided by the legislature.

The lawyer for the couples, Norman Siegel, filed papers Tuesday in the Second Appellate Division in Brooklyn. The appeal says that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is violates the state constitution.

Whatever the outcome in the case it is likely to be appealed by one side or the other to the high court - the Court of Appeal - where two other cases involving same-sex couples are already waiting.

The first case will be argued on May 31. That one involves five gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City. The couples are represented by Lambda Legal.

Last December an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that found the ban on gay marriage was illegal. (story)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed Ling-Cohan's decision and Lambda in turn appealed the appellate decision.

In Lambda's written brief to the high court it states, in part, that, "This appeal is about far more than abstract legal principles. At heart, it concerns real New York families who share the same love and day-to-day journey together through life that binds married couples."

In the second case, the ACLU is representing 12 same-sex couples, among them New York State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and his partner John Banta. (story) O'Donnell is the brother of Rosie O'Donnell.

Written arguments were submitted earlier this month and the high court has not yet set a date to hear arguments.

The Court of Appeals could render a decision in the Lambda case first, making moot the other two, or it could wait until it has heard arguments in all three.

Tidbits

-

PRE-ORDER BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN NOW -- RELEASE DATE 4/4/06

List Price:
$29.98
B&N Price:
$20.98(Save 30%)
item will be available on April 4.


WHAT POWER WE HAVE!

First, we brought on 9/11, then we brought on Katrina, now:

(Jerusalem) A prominent Kabbalah leader says that gays have brought a plague of bird flu on Israel.

With all this power, why are we letting legislators ask for rights for us? Why don't we just TAKE 'em?

CONNECTICUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWSUIT BEGINS

(New Haven, Connecticut) Eight same-sex couples suing the state of Connecticut for the right to marry said Tuesday as the case opened they are "cautiously optimistic".

NEW HAMPSHIRE LAWMAKERS STOP ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DEAD IN ITS TRACKS

(Concord, New Hampshire) The New Hampshire House delivered a crushing blow on Tuesday to supporters of an amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

LEFT COAST OCCUPANTS MORE INCLINED TO SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THESE DAYS

(San Francisco, California) The gap between those in Californian who oppose same-sex marriage and those who are accepting is narrowing a new poll shows.

Case Update

An interesting article today:

(New York City) New York State's highest court - the Court of Appeal - will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage on May 31.

The case involves five gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City.

Last December an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that found the ban on gay marriage was illegal. (story)

In a 4-1 ruling the appellate judges said that New York City judge Doris Ling-Cohan erred in overturning the gay marriage ban.

"It couldn't be more fitting that the case seeking to end the discrimination against same-sex couples who want to marry is being heard the day before an entire month celebrating LGBT people and their families," said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal which represents the couples.

In her ruling Ling-Cohan said the state's ban on gay marriage was not only unconstitutional but also that the New York City clerk may not deny a marriage license solely because a couple is of the same sex. (story)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed Ling-Cohan's decision and Lambda in turn appealed the appellate decision.

In Lambda's written brief to the high court it states, in part, that, "This appeal is about far more than abstract legal principles. At heart, it concerns real New York families who share the same love and day-to-day journey together through life that binds married couples."

The lawsuit seeks marriage for same-sex couples in New York and argues that denying these couples marriage violates the state constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers.

This is the first of several lawsuits in New York challenging the ban on same-sex marriage and the first to reach the high court.

Lambda, and other LGBT rights groups have filed similar cases seeking marriage for same-sex couples in California, Washington, New Jersey and Iowa.

The New Jersey case went to that state's Supreme Court on February 15. Arguments were made at the high court in Washington state last year. Decisions in both cases could come at any time.

I forwarded the article to my lawyer and asked for an update on where we were. He apparently forwarded it to the ACLU lawyer, who sent me this response:

Pat,
Jeff has forwarded your inquiry to me because I am acting as the coordinator for all of the legal groups interested in your case. As you may be aware, there are two approaches to attaining the right of same-sex couples to marry: the frontal, all-or-nothing approach, exemplified by the case going to the Court of Appeals and the backdoor, incremental approach which focuses on the various benefits and obligations of marriage. Your case fits into the latter approach. Some of the legal arguments are common to both; some not. Right now Jeff has prepared a brief which I have circulated to the other groups. We want to make sure that we have identified all possible arguments and then we must decide whether to include them in this first brief or hold them for a possible appeal. Once we have finalized the contents of the brief, Jeff can file papers seeking an accelerated judgment. These papers will include the brief. Given the significance of your case, locally, statewide, and nationally, we want to make sure the brief is right.
Scott

Lisa and I had a long talk last night and, after I told her that I wanted to just go ahead and bust the buck to get my last name changed, she said she'd rather spend the money to get all the protections in place that we need. Her name on the deed to the house, my name on her IRA, wills, powers of attorney, health care proxies, stuff like that. Of course she's right. The money would be better spent that way -- or rather, we would get better value from the money that way.

The state comptroller has already announced that same-sex partners will be recognized for retirement benefit purposes for those couples who were legally married in Canada or other jurisdictions where the marriage is legal and binding.

While Lisa's employer has indicated that she views us as legally married, no differently than any heterosexual couple, it's hard to say with any degree of certainty what she would actually do with Lisa's profit sharing plan if something happened to Lisa.

All indicators are that this will be a precedent setting case for New York, and could go as far as SCOTUS. Of course, by the time it reaches SCOTUS, I'll long since have been drawing social security...

This is what happens when you try to be petty...

(Dover, Delaware) The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that the birthmother of triplets must share custody with her ex-partner but the decision does not set a precedent for other same-sex couples.

The case involved the appeal of a 2004 lower court ruling that said because the ex-partner had helped raise the children she was a "de facto parent" and therefore entitled to joint custody.

The two women were given pseudonyms by the court to protect the identity of the children who are still minors.

"Erica Smith" and "Sheila Smith" ended a nine year relationship in 2003. "Erica Smith" then went to court seeking to prevent "Sheila Smith" from having access to the children.

In 2004 a Delaware Family Court judge ruled "Sheila Smith" a "de facto parent" and awarded her joint custody.

Following the ruling "Erica Smith" launched an appeal of the ruling and at the same time filed for retroactive child support from "Sheila Smith" based on the ruling she was fighting.

While the appeal continued "Sheila Smith" was ordered to pay $721 a month for care of the triplets.

At the Supreme Court legal papers showed that she is continuing to the support.

It was on the issue of the decision by "Erica Smith" seek child support that the justices ruled.

Writing for the three judge panel that heard the case, Justice Randy J. Holland said that "Erica Smith" had undermined her case by accepting support for the children.

Holland said that by doing so she legally accepted that "Sheila Smith" was in fact a "de facto parent".

The ruling did not address the issue of co-parenting itself.

Lawyers for both women and the ACLU of Delaware said that question is likely to come up in the future.

Study: Gay Health Imperiled By Denial Of Marriage

(San Francisco, California) A new national study shows widespread psychological and social harm inflicted on same-sex couples because they are denied the right to marry.

The study, called “I Do, But I Can’t" was released at a San Francisco news conference Tuesday by the National Sexuality Resource Center and is the first first peer-reviewed study to analyze the impact of marriage denial on the mental health and well being of gay men and lesbians.

The co-authors are Gilbert Herdt, PhD, anthropologist, and director of the National Sexuality Resource Center at San Francisco State University, and Robert Kertzner, MD, practicing psychiatrist, and Adjunct Associate Research Scientist in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University.

They found that on average, married individuals have better mental health, more emotional support, less psychological distress, and lower rates of psychiatric disorder than the unmarried.

Married individuals report more emotional support and are more likely to have a close confidant than the unmarried. Effects of emotional support seem to provide protection against the negative health consequences of stress the authors say.

"Marriage denial creates what experts call minority stress, the psychological effects of constant discrimination that bars individuals from the legitimate means of achieving goals that are valued by the society in which they live,” said Herdt.

"Lesbians and gay men work just as hard as heterosexuals do in creating and maintaining committed relationships, but they do not get the same tangible benefits."

The study also found that heterosexual networks are subtle but critical mechanisms that support marriage.

A case study of a town in rural Oregon revealed how heterosexuals routinely relied on churches, schools, and neighborhood visibility to secure or enhance jobs, access social support such as childcare, and form local political alliances. A same-sex couple residing in the same town was shut out of this structure of opportunities.

Minority group members were seen as disadvantaged in attaining monetary success because of exclusion from common social structures. For lesbians and gay men, marriage denial leads to a similar minority group disjunction between goals and opportunities the report says.

Herdt and Kertzner also found that the lack of legally recognized marriage contributes to common problems for gay and lesbian couples. Ccouples may not value their relationships as legitimate expressions of commitment and intimate sexual citizenship; lack of recognition of their relationships deprives them of social and family support that could help counteract stress and social isolation; invisibility can perpetuate stigma and shame and undermine a sense of life meaning, morale, and well being.

The report said that discrimination and fear of discovery can undermine relationships if the partners do not have internal ways of countering the social stigma of homosexuality.

At Tuesday's press a lesbian couple, Leah Crask and Teresa Weeks, said they feel they constantly have to prove to the world that they are a committed couple.

They said that they registered as domestic partners in San Francisco and were able to marry there on March 1, 2004 while that city briefly allowed gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The women said that they decided to start a family, only to have their marriage invalidated.

They currently are in the process of a second-parent adoption so Teresa can be a legal parent to their nine-month-old son, Caden.

“The stress we experience because we’re not married affects us and our child but also our extended family, including Caden’s grandparents, who worry about his future.”

A gay man, Stuart Gaffney, told reporters about himself and his long-time partner, Jonathan Lewis.

"When we were able to marry in San Francisco, the burden of shame was lifted away. We had a taste of all we had missed. Thirty days later our marriage was invalidated and we felt the shame placed back upon us,” Gaffney said.

"The stigma and harm caused by denying committed lesbian and gay couples the choice to marry fuels a vicious cycle,” added Herdt.

"Fictitious stereotypes attribute promiscuity to gay men and lesbians, fueling the false belief that they are immoral and reinforcing in the minds of critics the ineligibility of lesbians and gay men for marriage and parenthood. The new proliferation of this old prejudice through the denial of marriage by sexual orientation, like all injustice, is harmful to us all.”

The findings of the report come as no surprise to people engaged in mental health in the gay community.

Earlier this month 365Gay.com reported that a counseling center that provides psychotherapy services to Austin's LGBT community found that the constitutional amendment passed by Texas voters last November is taking a toll on the mental of health of gays and lesbians in the state. (story)

A British study released this month also found that legalized same-sex unions boosts both the mental and physical health of gays and lesbians.

Cool/Not Cool

Cool that these people have formed this group to help protect the families of fallen soldiers from these lunatics -- not cool because they have to. These people hate homosexuals so much, they manage to work their hatred of us into everything around them.


(Fort Campbell, Kentucky) Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.

They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with patriotic chants and a sea of red, white and blue flags.

"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."

At least 14 states, including Oklahoma, are considering laws aimed at the funeral protesters, who at a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell wrapped themselves in upside-down American flags. They danced and sang impromptu songs peppered with vulgarities that condemned homosexuals and soldiers.

The Patriot Guard was also there, waving up a ruckus of support for the families across the street. Community members came in the freezing rain to chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" alongside them.

"This is just the right thing to do. This is something America didn't do in the '70s," said Kurt Mayer, the group's national spokesman. "Whether we agree with why we're over there, these soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kan.-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country "that embraces homosexuals."

"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."

The church, Westboro Baptist Church, is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Fred Phelps' extended family members.

During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project.

The project's deputy director, Heidi Beirich, said other groups have tried to counter Phelps' message, but none has been as organized as the Patriot Guard.

"I'm not sure anybody has gone to this length to stand in solidarity," she said. "It's nice that these veterans and their supporters are trying to do something. I can't imagine anything worse, your loved one is killed in Iraq and you've got to deal with Fred Phelps."

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group only comes to funerals if invited by family. He said he has no problem with protests against the war but sees no place for objectors at a family's final goodbye to a soldier.

"No one deserves this," he said.

News Tidbits

(Rochester, New York) A Rochester, New York pastor has been charged with violating her covenant as a Presbyterian minister for performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
The Reverend Doctor Jane Adams Spahr is accused of marrying two lesbian couples in violation of Presbyterian Church rules.

==============

(Ashville, North Carolina) The Rev. Joe Hoffman stood before his congregation at Ashville's First Congregational United Church of Christ on Sunday and announced he would not sign marriage certificates until same-ex couples receive marriage equality in North Carolina.

==============

Excellent editorial in the Sunday New York Times.

==============

I recently saw a comment on another blog indicating a lack of understanding why gays would want the courts to decide the DISSOLUTION of their partnering because of all the fightin' and fussin' involved in a divorce.

What a narrow view this person has. He apparently feels that all same-sex relationships will turn out as badly as 50% of heterosexual relationships, yet he doesn't understand the concept of protecting our families through marriage, the same way his own is protected. He doesn't seem to want to understand that there are same-sex couples out there that have been together for decades -- longer than "traditional" heterosexual relationships -- yet, if/when one of them dies, the survivor stands to lose all that they've built together.

He totally misses the point. It's not that we want the courts involved in our relationships in any way, shape or form. We just want the legal right to make the same BAD choices that he has.

New Jersey Marriage Case Goes to State's Highest Court

Following is a news article I found this morning regarding the arguments before the New Jersey Supreme Court on why same-sex marriage should or should not be legalized in that state. Emphasis and comments are my own.

(Trenton, New Jersey) The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning in a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The justices peppered attorneys on both sides of the argument about the legal implications of opening up gay marriage, and whether the court or the legislature was the best venue to decide the issue.

Lambda Legal Attorney David Buckel told the court that barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying violates the state constitution and "creates second class citizens".

Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida told the justices that the legislature should be allowed to decide who can marry. DeAlmeida said New Jersey already grants same-sex couples most of the rights of marriage through its domestic partner law.

He also told the court that the state's ban on gay marriage is based on the "historical tradition" that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"But there are other historical facts," interjected Justice Deborah Poritz.

"For a long time women were property in the marriage relationship. For a long time women could not make the claim of rape against the husband. There have been lots of ways in which the traditional ways of marriage, and the relationship in marriage, have changed. So why should we just simply defer to 'it's historical.'?" Indeed, this has been one of the biggest arguments all along. Sort of a "don't kick a sleeping dog" mentality. How can we justify "It's always been that way" as a reason to discriminate?

Arguments lasted just over an hour.

"The families we serve have finally had their day in the state's highest court, and if we win these families will be stronger for it," Buckel told reporters outside the court.

"New Jersey is a unique state and more than ready to fulfill the New Jersey Constitution's promise of equality and liberty for the over 16,000 same-sex couples who live here."

The lawsuit began in 2002 when seven same-sex couples represented by Lambda filed a lawsuit seeking the right to marry.

In June, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same-sex marriage. The court, in a split decision, said that it is up to the legislature to change marriage laws if same-sex couples are to wed in the Garden State.

Lambda immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.

About 40 gay rights activists from groups such as Garden State Equality and the National Organization for Women waved black and orange signs reading "Marriage Equality'' and chanted slogans including, "Two, four, six, eight, we're the state that doesn't hate.''

"We've been waiting 34 years to get married," said Chris Lodewyks and Craig Hutchison, plaintiffs in the case. "All these years we've been through so many of life's joys and sorrows together - it really is long past time that we should be able to marry."

Lodewyks and Hutchison and the other couples involved in the case were all in court Wednesday to hear the arguments.

Not far from where gay activists were rallying protestors from conservative groups held their own demonstration. They gathered to pray and sing hymns and "God Bless America.''

John Tomicki, chairman of the New Jersey Coalition to Rescue and Protect Marriage, said marriage is sacred and should be restricted to heterosexual couples.

"That's where our culture and history has been for thousands of years,'' Tomicki said.

Generally it takes several weeks or even months for the court to deliver its opinions after the arguments are heard.

If Ever There Was a Time...

...to barrage your lawmakers with communications regarding anti-gay laws, now is the time.

(Washington) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has announced that he will bring the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” to a full vote in the Senate on June 5.

The timing will make it a key issue as Congress gears up for November's mid term elections.

“Today, the institution of marriage is under attack," Frist told the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington on Friday. Details of the conference became public on Monday for the first time.

"When America's values are under attack, we need to act," Frist said. "And on June 5 — and everybody note that on your calendar — when I bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Senate floor, we will act.”

Other speakers at the event were noted anti-gay leaders Phyllis Schlafly; Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa); Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan); and Alan Chambers, head of the “ex-gay” group Exodus International.

The proposed amendment is almost identical to one which failed to get enough votes in 2004. (story) It was reintroduced in January. (story) A House version was reintroduced in March.

“Not one marriage is protected by this amendment and all marriages are devalued when used as a political ploy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

“Writing one group of people out of the protections of the Constitution is politics at its worst.”

Not only would the amendment ban marriage for same-sex couples, it also could threaten domestic partnerships and civil unions.

“Americans want fairness for gay couples and this amendment could wipe out any option for providing critical responsibilities and protections to families,” said Solmonese. “Our nation’s founding document should be amended to expand rights and liberties, not take them away.”

To become part of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Federal law already bans recognition of same-sex unions. The federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Frist said that the law is not enough, adding that the amendment would block "the whims of a few activist judges" from overriding "the common sense of the American people."

C-E-L-E-B-R-A-T-E

How did it happen so quickly, that half the states now have legislation against our civil rights? At first, it was only one or two, then eleven, now HALF?

Celebrate marriage this week!

(New York City) In cities, towns and villages across the country this week same-sex couples will be making the point that equal rights means marriage rights.

Specific laws or constitutional amendments specifically outlaw same-sex marriage in about half the states. Others are considering similar measures.

Only in Massachusetts is gay marriage legal. Court challenges to marriage restrictions are underway. A decision could come any day from the Supreme Court in the state of Washington.

This week the issue will be argued at the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Similar cases are proceeding to the high courts in New York and California.

But throughout the country gays and lesbians realize that marriage equality depends on winning the hearts and minds of Americans.

In Chicago, same-sex couples got a head start on Freedom to Marry Week with a Saturday march through the downtown area. The march started off at Daley Plaza, winding up on the steps Holy Name Cathedral where a mock wedding was performed.

In California, hundreds of advocates of marriage equality will go to county clerks’ offices throughout California on Valentine’s Day to seek marriage licenses.

Valentine's Day marks the second anniversary of the same-sex marriages that took place in San Francisco. Those marriages were late invalidated by the courts and the issue of gay marriage is expected to be heard by the state Supreme Court sometime next year.

“Marriage discrimination affects hundreds of thousands of people in California,” said Molly McKay, Equality California Field Director.

“Our actions on Tuesday will help all Californians understand that same-sex couples simply seek the same relationship rights and responsibilities of other families. On Valentine’s Day, couples of all kinds celebrating their love and commitment to one another, but same-sex couples are denied access to basic protections that married couples enjoy. We want to put a human face on that reality.”

California is home to the largest number of same-sex couples in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

In New York, same-sex couples and their supporters will demonstrate Tuesday at City Hall.

Last week legal arguments were filed with New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeal, with Lambda Legal arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional. The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case later this year.

But demonstrations and events are not limited just to big cities with large gay communities.

In the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania a small group of protesters marched to the Lehigh County Courthouse to apply for marriage licenses.

"We're not here to demand any kind of special rights, we're here to demand equal rights," said Elizabeth Goudy, who with her partner were turned down.

While the fight for marriage equality goes on state by state Congress is once again taking up a proposed amendment to the Constitution to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Attempts by Republicans in Congress to pass the proposed amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman failed last year.

The measure was reintroduced in January. A House version was reintroduced in March.

Coretta Scott King Dies

(Atlanta, Georgia) Coretta Scott King, the widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., died this morning. She was 78.

Until she was disabled by a stroke last August King frequently spoke out, often to the anger of some Black pastors, in favor of LGBT civil rights.

King called her critics "misinformed" and said that Martin Luther King's message to the world was one of equality and inclusion.

In 2003, she invited the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to take part in observances of the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.

It was the first time that an LGBT rights group had been invited to a major event of the African American community and drew the ire of some of the other speakers.

King said her husband supported the quest for equality by gays and reminded her critics that the 1963 March on Washington was organized by Bayard Rustin, an openly gay man.

NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman, who spoke at the 2003 anniversary, called Coretta King a model for equality.

“Our community has lost a dear and courageous friend, someone who was there for us when virtually no one else was," Foreman said on Tuesday.

"Mrs. King never hesitated to use her moral authority to proclaim that homophobia is hate, and hate has no place in the Beloved Community that she and Dr. King envisioned for our nation and our world."

In March 2004, she told a university audience that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and denounced a proposed amendment to the Constitution ban it.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said in a speech at The Richard Stockton College in Pomona, New Jersey.

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

In her speech King also criticized a group of black pastors in her home state of Georgia for backing a bill to amend that state's constitution to block gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

“All of us who aspire to live without prejudice or limits owe a very large debt to Mrs. King,” C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said following the announcement of her death.

“She was what Virginia Woolf once called that rare combination of ‘granite and rainbow,’ at once an immovable legacy on which we all stood and a luminous reminder of the arc waiting just behind the rain. A tireless advocate for equality, she leaves us both her own work and the work we must all yet do.”

Gay Democrats also remembered King's contributions.

"Standing behind a great movement was a grand woman who shouldered the hopes of our American dream," said Eric Stern, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director.

"Returning to Memphis five days after the assassination of her husband to demand justice for working families, Coretta Scott King continued her advocacy for the expansion of liberty embodied by their partnership. Mrs. King argued that our nation would not fulfill its promise unless all Americans, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens, were afforded equal treatment under the law."

Coretta Scott met Martin Luther King Jr. while she was studying at Boston's New England Conservatory of Music.

They were married in June of 1953 and a year later moved to Montgomery, Alabama, to take on the leadership of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.

When Dr. King was assassinated she was a young widow with four young children to raise.

The killing instantly thrust her to the forefront of the civil rights movement. She took up her husband's mantle of social justice crusader speaking in forums across this country and around the world.

Her death was announced by former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. He said that she will be buried beside her husband at the Martin Luther King Center for NonViolent Social Change.

News bits on Marriage Equality

BALTIMORE - A Maryland circuit court ruled on 1/20/2006 that it is a violation of the state constitution to deny same-sex couples the numerous protections provided to married couples. The American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland hail the decision as an historic step toward the ability of same-sex couples to legally marry in the state. Read more here.

BUT, at the same time:

(AP) ANNAPOLIS, Md. The agenda this week in the state legislature includes work on two leading issues -- gay marriage and electronic voting.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled tomorrow to hold a hearing on a proposed ban of same-sex marriage. The panel has killed similar bills in the past and Republican Delegate Don Dwyer of Anne Arundel County expects the same result for his bill this year. Read more here.

AND, in Jerry Falwell country:

Virginia voters will decide this fall if an anti-gay marriage amendment should be tacked onto their commonwealth's constitution, now that lawmakers have overwhelmingly approved it. So much for "Virginia is for Lovers."

ELSEWHERE:

Rhode Island's Senate and House are both facing bills that seek to legalize same-sex marriage.
Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, introduced the Senate version Tuesday. Rep. Art Handy, D-Cranston, reportedly introduced a similar bill in the lower house Wednesday.

GUTSY:

(Hendersonville, North Carolina) A Hendersonville, North Carolina same-sex couple is refusing to pay Federal and North Carolina Income Tax to protest the refusal of both levels of government to recognize them as a couple. Imagine the penalties...

Nothing new to report on our lawsuit these days. I think Laboriously S-L-O-W is an understatement in describing this process. Hell, I'm eligible for social security in just 12 more years.

Canadians Elect Conservatives, but it's not all bad news

(Ottawa) Canadians ended more than a dozen years of Liberal rule on Monday, electing a minority Conservative government.

For most voters it was an issue of 'new blood' rather than a ringing endorsement of conservatism.

Paul Martin's Liberals had been beset with a series of scandals and was seen as tired. "Voters decided the Liberals needed a time out," said one television commentator.

At the same time voters weren't in favor of giving Stephen Harper's Conservatives a majority. The Tories won 124 seats and the Liberals 103. The results were much closer than polls were showing only a few days ago.

The small left of center New Democratic Party was the big winner of the night - doubling their seats to 29 and putting the party in a position to be the power broker in the new Parliament.

NDP leader Jack Layton said he would make an issue by issue decision on whether or not to support the government.

If the party supports the Tories legislation will pass. If the party sides with the Liberals they could defeat the government.

"The people of Canada asked Mr. Harper to form a new government and the people of Canada have asked New Democrats to balance that government," Layton told supporters in Toronto.

For Layton the election was a double victory. His wife, Toronto city councilor Olivia Chow, also was elected to Parliament.

The Conservative dependence on the NDP will likely mean no revisiting same-sex marriage legislation.

Harper said on the first day of the campaign he would attempt to repeal the marriage equality law. With the New Democrats, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, and the Liberals all opposed to changing the law there is little chance same-sex marriage in Canada will end anytime soon.

While the Conservatives saw some of the party's most anti-supporters elected it also saw a wider number of moderate Tories win support. For Harper the big job will be in balancing the two factions.

In a lengthy speech to supporters Harper outlined his agenda for the new Parliament. Absent was any mention of same-sex marriage.

Longtime gay New Democrat candidate Svend Robinson lost his bid for a return to politics in British Columbia.

Robinson, 53, resigned from politics in 2004 after admitting that he had shoplifted a diamond ring that he said was sparked by the stress of a hectic work schedule and a mild bipolar disorder for which he was taking medication and seeing a therapist.

In Nova Scotia, Scott Brison the gay man who quit the Conservatives in the last Parliament and joined the Liberals was re-elected. Openly gay Bloc MP Real Menard also was re-elected

The election also marked the end of Paul Martin's political career.

Martin told supporters following the election that he was stepping down as party leader.

"My dedication to the Liberal family will never wane,'' Martin said in his Quebec riding of LaSalle-Emard.

"But I will not take our party into another election.''

One of the highlights of his political career was pushing through marriage same-sex marriage equality last year.

All eyes are on Canada today

(Ottawa) Canadians are voting for a new Parliament today in an election that could result in the repeal of same-sex marriage legislation.

Public opinion polls show the opposition Conservatives likely to win but whether Canadians will hand them an absolute majority remains to be seen.

The Conservatives oppose same-sex marriage but for most Canadians the big issues have been a series of scandals that have rocked the governing Liberals and Conservative Party promises to clean up government and cut taxes.

After 12 years in power the Liberals have grown sluggish and many Canadians just say its time for change - any change. That sentiment is helping the smaller opposition New Democrats. Polls show the NDP could have its best showing in more than a decade.

Vote rich Ontario has seen a resurgence in the NDP, especially in the cities which have traditionally been Liberal. Suburban and rural areas appear solidly Tory.

In Quebec, where the biggest Liberal scandal - over advertising kickbacks during the last independence vote - took place, the Bloc Quebecois are likely to pick up seats. But speeches by Conservative leader Stephen Harper have played well in the province and Tories also are looking to win more seats all at the expense of Liberals.

The issue of same-sex marriage came up on the first day of the campaign - an attempt by Harper to get it out of the way early. The Tory leader said that if his Conservatives form the next government he will reopen the marriage debate and put it to a free vote in Parliament.

During the leader's debates the issue came up again as the three other party leaders demanded to know how Harper would repeal the law without using a constitutional opt-out called the notwithstanding clause. Harper said he would not bypass the Constitution but has never said how he intended to get around the gay equality provisions.

In the waning days of the campaign Harper said repealing same-sex marriage was not one of his major priorities although it was still on his "to do" list if he wins.

If Canadians today elect a minority Conservative government same-sex marriage is safe. The New Democrats, Bloc, and the bulk of Liberals oppose any change in the current law.

But should Harper win a majority the issue could come into play. Yet even that is uncertain. With the Conservatives making a concerted effort to portray the party as centrist it selected a number of candidates like former broadcaster Peter Kent who support gay marriage.

Nevertheless, the Tories still have more than their share of extremists, supported by the Christian right, who have made same-sex marriage their main focus while campaigning. Attempts by the media to interview those candidates have been thwarted by national party handlers afraid extremist views could aid the Liberals.

Conservative Christian groups in the US have sent tens of thousands of dollars to their Canadian counterparts. Much of the money has been filtered to the Tory party.

With polls showing the likelihood of a Conservative government American conservatives have been warning their members to keep a low public profile for fear of tipping the election to the Liberals.

"Canadian voters have been led to believe that American conservatives are scary and if the Conservative Party can be linked with us, they can perhaps diminish a Conservative victory," Paul Weyrich, president of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, wrote Thursday in an e-mail to other conservative leaders, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe and Mail newspaper.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the oldest LGBT civil rights organization in the US however made a final appeal to Canadian voters and issued a warning for American gays.

"If the Conservatives succeed in Monday's election, not only will it cause years of turmoil in Canada, it will embolden continued right-wing attacks on the values of dignity, fairness and equality here in the United States," said NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman.

Officials Reverse Position, Lesbian Cop To Get Dying Wish
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 21, 2006 - 10:00 am ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) Ocean County freeholders will grant Laurel Hester her dying wish, to have her death benefit given to her same-sex partner.

Despite state law allowing local governments to grant health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees Ocean County has steadfastly refused to do so.

For months Sgt. Hester, who has inoperable brain cancer, has pleaded with freeholders to pass an ordinance recognizing same-sex partners for the purpose of benefits.

Earlier this week, with only a few months to live, she made a final plea from her hospital room. (story)

Appearing weak, and breathing with the help of a machine, she said on a video tape that she feared partner Stacie Andree would lose the home they shared after Hester dies.

With little doctors can do for, except make her as comfortable as possible, Hester has been a released from hospital and is now at home.

Until she became too ill to work Hester was a lieutenant with the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office. She had worked there for 23 years - more than half her life - and is a member of the New Jersey Police and Firemen's Retirement System.

Although the state's five other pension systems allow its members to pass pension benefits to domestic partners the NJPFRS does not. Under the state's domestic partner law local governments can transfer pension benefits.

The death benefit amounts to about $13,000.

Following Hester's emotional appeal freeholders refused to reopen the issue. But following news coverage including television reports which showed Hester's deteriorating condition, freeholders were besieged with critical phone calls and emails.

Late Friday state Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) said he intends to bring in legislation that would amend the police and fire pension fund to permit domestic partners to receive benefits.

That was followed by a conference call between state GOP leaders from the county and freeholders.

The conference call ended with freeholders agreeing to a special meeting next Wednesday where a new vote will be taken and Hester will be allowed to transfer her benefits.

"This is one of the happiest days of my life," Hester said on Saturday morning. "I feel like David conquering Goliath."

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality - the group that fought for Hestor and prepared the video so she could make her final appeal to freeholders - expressed relief on Saturday.

"Truth be told, we did lose hope for a reversal in the last couple of weeks. We had applied all the pressure in the world, embarrassing the freeholders as few public servants had ever been before in the state of New Jersey or in this country, and they would not budge. Finally they did. Hallelujah! There is a God."

Whether Wednesday's vote will apply only to Hester or will be extended to all same-sex partners of county workers is not yet known.

Freeholder James F. Lacey said Saturday that he still feels the benefits issue is one for the legislature. "I don't want to pay to clean up for the state," he said.

But he agreed that Hester's situation cannot wait for state lawmakers to act..

Following Hester's desperate plea this week in Ocean County two other New Jersey municipalities have changed their laws.

Camden County and Passaic passed ordinances offering health and pension benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. (story) Five other communities in the state also provide domestic partner benefits.

Tidbits

I haven't been around here much -- lots going on in my life, and it took me almost an entire week to write it out at my personal blog. Having done so was cathartic and helped me to sort through things pretty well. Hopefully I'll be around a little bit more now.

Well, a year ago today the news article hit the public -- the news article about our lawsuit against my employer. The process has gone laboriously slow, having taken 21 months already, with no real end in sight just yet. However, since it was filed, our employer did agree to domestic partner benefits under the terms of our new union contract. Separate and not equal, but it is a small step. It's costing me $9.60 per month "extra" to carry Lisa on my health insurance. It's costing my employer $112 per month extra. For two separate plans, it was costing us $153.35 per month more for Lisa's, and Lisa's employer the same.

I got a really nasty, caustic email from an "anonymous" writer, telling me that I was going to go to Hell, burn for eternity, yadda yadda yadda, for "embracing your deviant lifestyle and taking others with you."

Whatever.

No big surprise here. Virginia's House of Delegates passed an anti-gay-marriage bill, which will now be sent to the senate for approval before presented to voters.

Virginia law already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Proponents say the constitutional amendment will make it clear that Virginia doesn't have to recognize gay marriages and same-sex civil commitments from other states.

Season three of The L Word started off pretty good Sunday. It was great to see some fun back in the show. Lisa and I nearly peed our pants at the end of the show when the cast was going through their inventory of euphamisms for the female genitalia. Bikini Biscuit, panty hamster, bearded oyster, camel's toe, Velcro triangle, vertical smile, and bald man in the boat were just some of them that got us going. At one point, Dana (who is now back with Lara) is saying that she's always had "polite" terms for hers, per her upbringing, but then Alice (who "happens" to be walking by) steps up and says "What about peeper? It's a wet peeper. It's a hot peeper." Dana grabs her purse and she and Lara quickly exit stage left, with Alice standing behind saying "peeper peeper peeper." If you've ever heard The Vagina Monologues, you've heard of some of them there, too.

It's such a shame that so many television stations have declined to air The Book of Daniel. While I didn't watch it myself (by choice), I was still annoyed to see that some of these stations bowed to pressure from extremist groups. One such group has also presented Washington state lawmakers with a "study" which purports to show that the passage of any gay rights bills could have negative effects on lawmakers at the polls. Legal extortion, I'd call it. Same with the AFA and other groups who call for boycotts against companies that support gay rights or anything gay related. How foolish would we look if we got a group together and called for a national boycott against any company that hires smokers?

Anyhoo...

Happy 2006!

As of January 1, Lisa and I now have "domestic partner" benefits, which allow me to put Lisa on my health and dental insurance, as well as getting a tuition waiver for her if she decides to take classes here where I work. It also bestows beneficiary status to her with regards to my unearned income, should I die while still employed. She already has beneficiary status with regards to my retirement account -- a status granted a couple of years ago by state comptroller Havesi. We're doing the Snoopy dance based on the substantial savings that this will afford us in not having to maintain two separate health insurance policies. We're one step closer, but still have a long way to go.

In other news, I got quite a chuckle this morning out of this article which describes the arrest of an anti-gay pastor for soliciting the services of a male prostitute, who happened to be an undercover police officer.

There seems to be a prevalent theme these days of the most vocal opponents of GLBT equality either having their own sexual exploits discovered, or the discovery that their offspring or other family members are homosexual.

It makes me sit back and anxiously await the "outing" of the likes of Phelps, Falwell, even Bush.