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.