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...