Vote on gay marriage is due but can't be forced, SJC says
Next step is up to Legislature
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff December 28, 2006
The Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that while state lawmakers have a constitutional duty to vote on a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, the justices could not order the Legislature to vote.
The high court, which legalized same-sex marriage in a landmark 2003 ruling, issued the unanimous decision in response to a lawsuit spearheaded by Governor Mitt Romney, who is trumpeting his opposition to such marriages as part of his expected run for the Republican presidential nomination.
The ruling is a legal victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, who are seeking to keep the question off the 2008 ballot, but a symbolic triumph for Romney and opponents of the marriages, who have pressured the Legislature to vote. The decision puts the controversy squarely back before the Democratic-controlled Legislature, which is expected to take up the issue again Tuesday, the last day of its current session.
The justices concluded that because of the constitutional separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches of government, they have no legal authority to force a vote. But the high court said legislators took an oath to uphold the Constitution and "ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them" if they fail to act.
Romney hailed the ruling as vindication, saying the court rejected the view of those who have argued that the 1918 constitutional amendment that allows ballot initiatives never mandated a vote by the Legislature.
"I applaud the court's unanimous decision that the Legislature has a constitutional duty to vote on the merits of the marriage amendment," Romney said in a statement. "As the court has made very clear, a procedural maneuver to avoid this responsibility would violate a legislator's oath of office. The issue is now whether the Legislature will follow the law."
A spokeswoman for Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, a defendant in the lawsuit, said he had no comment on the ruling or what might happen Tuesday. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi also had no comment, his spokeswoman said.
However, Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees predicted that the ruling will have little effect on the Legislature, which voted 109-87 in a joint session last month to recess without a vote on the amendment.
The ban needs the backing of at least one-quarter of state legislators to advance to next year's session and, ultimately, to the 2008 ballot. Opponents of the ban fear that it would easily muster that much support if lawmakers took an up-or-down vote.
Lees said his duty to vote against a measure that would discriminate against a minority group trumped the court's findings. "I will never vote to put a form of discrimination into the state constitution," said Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican.
Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, a group that urged the Legislature not to act on the ban, said yesterday that advocates of same-sex marriage were lobbying legislators to again avoid a vote on Tuesday.
"We know that if the Legislature votes on the amendment, we will lose this year and next year, and it will go to the ballot, where it will likely pass," Isaacson said.
If lawmakers ignore the court's rebuke, they could adjourn the joint session for the year Tuesday or recess at midnight, when the session legally expires, according to legislative observers. Another option would be for enough supporters of same-sex marriage to boycott the session so that it does not have a quorum.
But Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a supporter of the ban, said the court has made it clear that such maneuvers defy the constitution. His group and other backers of the proposed constitutional amendment had collected 170,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
"These legislators have to make a decision on Jan. 2: Do I obey the constitution, or do I violate the constitution?" he said. "There's no wiggle room."
Romney, who leaves office on Jan. 4, and 10 other plaintiffs filed the suit last month, charging that legislators subverted the state constitution on Nov. 9 when they refused to vote on whether to put the amendment on the ballot.
In its ruling yesterday, the court said that, despite arguments to the contrary by some supporters of same-sex marriage, the requirement to vote on the merits of a bona fide voter initiative petition is "beyond serious debate."
But "there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," said the opinion written by Justice John M. Greaney, the longest-serving member of the court. "We have no statutory authority to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of the legislative action, or inaction, in this matter."
Still, Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, said the ruling will increase pressure on lawmakers to act. "Legislators have been trying to cloud the issue by saying there was no obligation to vote," he said. "Now that we have a very clear and unambiguous statement from the court that there is a constitutional duty to vote, it's going to be very difficult for individual legislators to sidestep the issue on Jan. 2."
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she hoped the legislators would continue to balk, even if it seemed like a cynical maneuver.
"This is my right to marry the person I love, and putting that [measure] on the ballot feels like the most cynical thing that could happen, on a very personal level," said Swislow, who married her partner of 10 years in June 2004.
Frank Phillips of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Andrew Ryan contributed to this report. Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com.
December 28, 2006
December 27, 2006
Confusion for Civil Union Couples
What's In A Name? Confusion For Civil Union Couples
by The Associated Press
Posted: December 24, 2006 4:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) In the early 1990s, Christopher Bellis, wary of shocking people, introduced the men he was dating as his "friends."
Now, he and Eddie Bennett, who have been a couple since 1995, are considering replacing the word they usually use for each other -- "partner" -- with "spouse" or "husband."
New Jersey's new law creating civil unions, signed Thursday by Gov. Jon Corzine, gives same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage. Now, gay couples are weighing not what civil unions mean, but what to call them.
Some gay couples refer to entering into a civil union as getting "civilized" or "unionized."
New Jersey joins Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a gay rights political group in Connecticut, said there isn't a consensus in her state about what to call the act of getting a civil union, or what same-sex partners should call each other.
"We hear some people using the term 'spouse,' We hear some saying 'partner,'" she said. "A few use 'husband' and 'wife,' but most want to save those for when marriage is legalized."
New Jersey's law came in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Veronica Hoff of Mount Laurel said she doesn't usually use "spouse" to describe Forest Kairos because they are not legally married, though they have had a commitment ceremony. She isn't fond of "partner" because that term is vague; she said it could mean business partner or tennis partner.
Privately, she and Kairos refer to each other by "cupcake," with "cup" an acronym for "civil union partner."
"It's a cute nickname," she said. "But if I introduce her to somebody else as my cupcake, it doesn't have a sense of dignity to it."
Bellis and Bennett affirmed their relationship through a family commitment ceremony in 1996 and by registering for domestic partnership in New Jersey in 2004. They plan to apply for a civil union license after the law takes effect Feb. 19.
"I no longer want the government to dictate what I can call my spouse," said Bellis, of South Orange.
Civil unions offer all the benefits of marriage New Jersey can confer, from adoption rights to alimony rights. They won't help same-sex couples with federal issues of marriage, such as Social Security benefits or being able to file taxes jointly, however.
The legal and legislative debate over the law was not about those benefits so much as it was about language.
Lawmakers considered terms such as "spousal partnerships" and "civil marriages," and "equal benefits" before settling, as expected, on civil unions. That's a term Vermont and Connecticut also use.
The question over language now becomes more personal than political. In its ruling, the Supreme Court wrote: "However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose."
For Joan Hervey, a Plainfield mortgage consultant, there's no question what to call partner Linda Geczi because they were married legally in Canada.
"I'm going to call her my wife," she said.
©365Gay.com 2006
by The Associated Press
Posted: December 24, 2006 4:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) In the early 1990s, Christopher Bellis, wary of shocking people, introduced the men he was dating as his "friends."
Now, he and Eddie Bennett, who have been a couple since 1995, are considering replacing the word they usually use for each other -- "partner" -- with "spouse" or "husband."
New Jersey's new law creating civil unions, signed Thursday by Gov. Jon Corzine, gives same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage. Now, gay couples are weighing not what civil unions mean, but what to call them.
Some gay couples refer to entering into a civil union as getting "civilized" or "unionized."
New Jersey joins Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a gay rights political group in Connecticut, said there isn't a consensus in her state about what to call the act of getting a civil union, or what same-sex partners should call each other.
"We hear some people using the term 'spouse,' We hear some saying 'partner,'" she said. "A few use 'husband' and 'wife,' but most want to save those for when marriage is legalized."
New Jersey's law came in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Veronica Hoff of Mount Laurel said she doesn't usually use "spouse" to describe Forest Kairos because they are not legally married, though they have had a commitment ceremony. She isn't fond of "partner" because that term is vague; she said it could mean business partner or tennis partner.
Privately, she and Kairos refer to each other by "cupcake," with "cup" an acronym for "civil union partner."
"It's a cute nickname," she said. "But if I introduce her to somebody else as my cupcake, it doesn't have a sense of dignity to it."
Bellis and Bennett affirmed their relationship through a family commitment ceremony in 1996 and by registering for domestic partnership in New Jersey in 2004. They plan to apply for a civil union license after the law takes effect Feb. 19.
"I no longer want the government to dictate what I can call my spouse," said Bellis, of South Orange.
Civil unions offer all the benefits of marriage New Jersey can confer, from adoption rights to alimony rights. They won't help same-sex couples with federal issues of marriage, such as Social Security benefits or being able to file taxes jointly, however.
The legal and legislative debate over the law was not about those benefits so much as it was about language.
Lawmakers considered terms such as "spousal partnerships" and "civil marriages," and "equal benefits" before settling, as expected, on civil unions. That's a term Vermont and Connecticut also use.
The question over language now becomes more personal than political. In its ruling, the Supreme Court wrote: "However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose."
For Joan Hervey, a Plainfield mortgage consultant, there's no question what to call partner Linda Geczi because they were married legally in Canada.
"I'm going to call her my wife," she said.
©365Gay.com 2006
December 24, 2006
Panel call for Civil Unions In Oregon
Governor's Panel Calls For Civil Unions In Oregon
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 22, 2006 1:00 pm ET
(Washington) A task force appointed by Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) is recommending the state allow same-sex couples to have civil unions and calls for the passage of legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The task force handed its report to Kulongoski on Thursday. It says that despite a law banning same-sex marriage gay and lesbian couples need "legal recognition" and recommends modeling a law similar to Vermont's civil union legislation.
But unlike the Vermont law the task force recommends limiting civil unions to Oregon residents.
The report was submitted to the governor shortly after New Jersey Gov. Jon A.. Corzine signed legislation creating civil unions in that state.
This is not the first time the issue of civil unions has come up in Oregon.
The Democratically controlled Senate last year approved a civil unions bill only to see it die in the Republican dominated House.
The GOP leadership first gutted the legislation (story) and then House Speaker Karen Minnis refused to allow it to come to a vote. (story) In an interview at the time, Minnis said Oregonians decided the issue in 2004 when they joined with voters in 10 other states in passing gay marriage bans.
The bill would have created a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.
Civil unions have the support of Kulongoski. He had called for passage of the bill in the last session and Thursday reiterated a pledge to support the reintroduction of the legislation.
This time it will have a much better chance of passage. Democrats now control both houses in the legislature.
House Majority Leader-elect Dave Hunt said he believes the majority of Oregonians support civil unions and that the legislation will be passed.
Republicans and social conservative groups that fought for passage of the ban on gay marriage said they will look at any legislation that would grant civil unions but if it comes too close to marriage they may attempt a constitutional amendment to strengthen the gay marriage ban.
The gay marriage debate intensified in Oregon in early 2004, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Some 3,000 same-sex couples were married in the county, which includes the city of Portland. Last year the state's highest court ruled that the marriages null and void but indicated that in light of the marriage amendment the legislature could provide civil unions. (story)
©365Gay.com 2006
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 22, 2006 1:00 pm ET
(Washington) A task force appointed by Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) is recommending the state allow same-sex couples to have civil unions and calls for the passage of legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The task force handed its report to Kulongoski on Thursday. It says that despite a law banning same-sex marriage gay and lesbian couples need "legal recognition" and recommends modeling a law similar to Vermont's civil union legislation.
But unlike the Vermont law the task force recommends limiting civil unions to Oregon residents.
The report was submitted to the governor shortly after New Jersey Gov. Jon A.. Corzine signed legislation creating civil unions in that state.
This is not the first time the issue of civil unions has come up in Oregon.
The Democratically controlled Senate last year approved a civil unions bill only to see it die in the Republican dominated House.
The GOP leadership first gutted the legislation (story) and then House Speaker Karen Minnis refused to allow it to come to a vote. (story) In an interview at the time, Minnis said Oregonians decided the issue in 2004 when they joined with voters in 10 other states in passing gay marriage bans.
The bill would have created a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.
Civil unions have the support of Kulongoski. He had called for passage of the bill in the last session and Thursday reiterated a pledge to support the reintroduction of the legislation.
This time it will have a much better chance of passage. Democrats now control both houses in the legislature.
House Majority Leader-elect Dave Hunt said he believes the majority of Oregonians support civil unions and that the legislation will be passed.
Republicans and social conservative groups that fought for passage of the ban on gay marriage said they will look at any legislation that would grant civil unions but if it comes too close to marriage they may attempt a constitutional amendment to strengthen the gay marriage ban.
The gay marriage debate intensified in Oregon in early 2004, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Some 3,000 same-sex couples were married in the county, which includes the city of Portland. Last year the state's highest court ruled that the marriages null and void but indicated that in light of the marriage amendment the legislature could provide civil unions. (story)
©365Gay.com 2006
Catholic leader charged in attack on pro-gay activist
Catholic leader charged in attack on pro-gay activist
Advocate
Dec 22, 2006
Police have filed an assault charge against the executive director of Boston-based Catholic Citizenship in the attack on a woman protesting the group's antigay rally Saturday outside City Hall in Worcester, Mass. Sarah Loy, 27, a straight supporter of same-sex marriage, says she was pushed to the ground by Larry Cirignano at the rally.
Cirignano, 50, Catholic Citizenship's leader, used the rally to call on the Massachusetts legislature to vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to halt same-sex marriages there. Last month state lawmakers recessed for the year without acting on the antigay proposal.
Loy, who attended with her husband and a few gay allies, went to the rally and staged a counterprotest. She held a sign saying "No discrimination in the constitution." When Cirignano saw Loy, she said, he stepped down from the podium and lunged at her, tackling her to the ground.
"You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now," he threatened as he pushed her, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk, according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.
The rally continued without any protest from the Catholic group, as a teary Loy yelled, "That's what hate does, that's what hate does," before leaving the scene.
Tom Lang, a same-sex marriage supporter in Loy's group, said the attack was surprisingly aggressive. "What was so unusual and calculated about Larry Cirignano's assault on Sarah Loy was that he left the podium area right after he gave his speech and pushed Sarah to the ground," he said. "This was not your average 'heated moment.' This was a premeditated, aggressive, and uncalled-for assault by the president of the Catholic Citizenship on a young lady who was exercising her right to assemble, protest, and voice her free speech."
In a statement e-mailed to reporters, Cirignano said he just "escorted the lady back into the crowd.... I never touched her shoulders, and she apparently thought that she could draw a foul like it was a basketball game by falling down."
"Great theater, not Academy Award material," he added.
MassEquality campaign director Marc Solomon called for Cirignano to "clean out his desk." "Sarah Loy had every right to peacefully hold her ground, and this aggressive action by a leader of the opposition should not be allowed to stand," Solomon said in a written statement. "This was more than intemperance. Individuals can make mistakes, but movement leaders must respond to a higher standard. In this, Mr. Cirignano clearly failed, and he should go."
Catholic Citizenship was founded by former Boston mayor Raymond Flynn to guide Catholics in political activism, The Boston Globe reported. A court hearing on the misdemeanor assault charge is pending. (Hassan Mirza and Barbara Wilcox, The Advocate)
Advocate
Dec 22, 2006
Police have filed an assault charge against the executive director of Boston-based Catholic Citizenship in the attack on a woman protesting the group's antigay rally Saturday outside City Hall in Worcester, Mass. Sarah Loy, 27, a straight supporter of same-sex marriage, says she was pushed to the ground by Larry Cirignano at the rally.
Cirignano, 50, Catholic Citizenship's leader, used the rally to call on the Massachusetts legislature to vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to halt same-sex marriages there. Last month state lawmakers recessed for the year without acting on the antigay proposal.
Loy, who attended with her husband and a few gay allies, went to the rally and staged a counterprotest. She held a sign saying "No discrimination in the constitution." When Cirignano saw Loy, she said, he stepped down from the podium and lunged at her, tackling her to the ground.
"You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now," he threatened as he pushed her, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk, according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.
The rally continued without any protest from the Catholic group, as a teary Loy yelled, "That's what hate does, that's what hate does," before leaving the scene.
Tom Lang, a same-sex marriage supporter in Loy's group, said the attack was surprisingly aggressive. "What was so unusual and calculated about Larry Cirignano's assault on Sarah Loy was that he left the podium area right after he gave his speech and pushed Sarah to the ground," he said. "This was not your average 'heated moment.' This was a premeditated, aggressive, and uncalled-for assault by the president of the Catholic Citizenship on a young lady who was exercising her right to assemble, protest, and voice her free speech."
In a statement e-mailed to reporters, Cirignano said he just "escorted the lady back into the crowd.... I never touched her shoulders, and she apparently thought that she could draw a foul like it was a basketball game by falling down."
"Great theater, not Academy Award material," he added.
MassEquality campaign director Marc Solomon called for Cirignano to "clean out his desk." "Sarah Loy had every right to peacefully hold her ground, and this aggressive action by a leader of the opposition should not be allowed to stand," Solomon said in a written statement. "This was more than intemperance. Individuals can make mistakes, but movement leaders must respond to a higher standard. In this, Mr. Cirignano clearly failed, and he should go."
Catholic Citizenship was founded by former Boston mayor Raymond Flynn to guide Catholics in political activism, The Boston Globe reported. A court hearing on the misdemeanor assault charge is pending. (Hassan Mirza and Barbara Wilcox, The Advocate)
December 21, 2006
NJ govenor to may gay unions official
N.J. gov. to make gay unions official
By TOM HESTER Jr.
Associated Press Writer © 2006 The Associated Press
TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey's gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law as New Jersey moves to become the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer some version of marriage.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine planned to sign the civil unions bill on Thursday.
When the law takes effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Gay couples granted civil unions in New Jersey will have adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Also, while the state law provide them with the benefits of married couples, they won't be entitled to the same benefits in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.
Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood, have been together for 20 years, have a 3-year-old son and had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally. Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.
"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.
The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.
The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.
"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.
The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
___
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel contributed to this report.
By TOM HESTER Jr.
Associated Press Writer © 2006 The Associated Press
TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey's gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law as New Jersey moves to become the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer some version of marriage.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine planned to sign the civil unions bill on Thursday.
When the law takes effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Gay couples granted civil unions in New Jersey will have adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Also, while the state law provide them with the benefits of married couples, they won't be entitled to the same benefits in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.
Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood, have been together for 20 years, have a 3-year-old son and had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally. Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.
"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.
The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.
The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.
"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.
The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
___
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel contributed to this report.
Calif. Supreme Court to Decide marriage case
Calif. Supreme Court To Decide Gay Marriage Issue
December 20, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on discrimination.
We are delighted that the court ruled so quickly and unanimously to grant review.
The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on discrimination.The move by all seven justices sets aside a lower court's decision in October that upheld state laws banning gays and lesbians from marrying one another.The high court will consider a total of six consolidated cases: four filed by the city of San Francisco and 19 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, and two filed by traditional values groups opposing such a right.No date has been set yet for a hearing on the issue. Briefs on the matter are due by this spring and the outcome is not likely until late next year.Massachusetts is currently the only state that authorizes same-sex marriage.Although the state Supreme Court grants review of only a small percentage of the cases appealed to it, its decision to take up the marriage cases was not a surprise.The review was sought not only by same-sex marriage supporters, but also, in an unusual move, by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who won the lower court decision.Lockyer, who has defended the state marriage laws, filed a brief earlier this month urging that a decision by the state's highest court was needed to provide "finality and certainty for the citizens of California."Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said Wednsday that "Californians need and deserve clarity on this issue as soon as possible. People of this state have rightly expected all along that clarity would be provided by the state Supreme Court."The justices will review an October decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that California marriage laws do not discriminate because gays and lesbians get most all the rights of marriage the state confers to heterosexual married couples.The appeals ourt majority said the Legislature and voters had a rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples while at the same time giving same-sex couples equal benefits through the state's domestic partnership system.Justice William McGuinness wrote in that ruling, "Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage."San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the marriage debate in the national spotlight by allowing same-sex couples to get married at City Hall in 2004. California's justices halted the wedding spree and voided the 4,037 marriage licenses while sidestepping the core constitutional question. They ruled the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law. The justices, however, invited a challenge to whether banning same-sex marriage was discrimination a challenge that reached the court Wednesday after it meandered through the trial and appellate courts.Whether prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians is the biggest question surrounding marriage the California Supreme Court has faced since 1948. That year, seven different justices became the first court in the nation to declare laws banning mixed-race marriages unconstitutional discrimination.Had the high court not taken the case, the lower court's decision would have stood.San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city was "extremely gratified" the justices are reviewing the case."Marriage equality -- It's perhaps the major civil rights issue of our time," he said, "and the state's highest court clearly recognizes it should have the final word on the issue in California."Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said, "We are delighted that the court ruled so quickly and unanimously to grant review.""We are very hopeful the court will stand up for basic fairness and bring an end to the current ban on marriage for an entire group of Californians," added Minter, who represents 11 gay and lesbian couples who filed one of the lawsuits before the court.Randy Thomasson, spokesman for Voteyesmarriage.com, a group opposing same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the court's move."If the law ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. "This is bad news for marriage and the voters of California who already passed a state law reaffirming that marriage is a natural and beautiful institution between a man and a woman."The court's recent record on gay and lesbian rights is mixed. In several landmark cases, the justices have concluded that gays and lesbians have the same rights as married couples to sue for wrongful death, to adopt children and to seek child support from former partners.Last year, the court unanimously ruled, under a sweeping domestic partner law that took effect Jan. 1, 2005, businesses must offer spousal discounts to same-sex domestic partners if it offers those benefits to married couples."The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses," wrote Justice Carlos Moreno, the court's only Democrat, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.But in 1998, before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-appointee Carol Corrigan and Moreno took the bench, the seven-member court unanimously sided with the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which barred an openly gay man from being an assistant scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation. The justices held that California civil rights laws did not apply to the Scouts, and the Scouts had a First Amendment right to associate with whomever it chose.The justices, however, were careful not to condone the Boy Scouts. "The resolution of this matter," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "does not turn on our personal views of the wisdom or morality of the actions or policies that are challenged in this case."None of those cases, however, has focused squarely on whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry as barred by 1977 legislation and a 2000 voter-approved measure. In Proposition 22, 61 percent of voters declared marriage as a union between a man and woman.Glen Lavy, a lawyer for the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, said, "We hope the court will recognize that it is valid to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That is what marriage has always meant in California.""The people of California spoke in 2000," he said, "and the people's voice should be heard. Political special interests shouldn't trump their voice regarding what's in the best interests of families and children."The closest the court came to deciding the issue was in its 2004 ruling that Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. In a 5-2 vote, the court also nullified the marriages.Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a 1994 Republican appointed by Wilson, and Justice Joyce Kennard, a Republican appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989, wrote separately the court should not nullify the marriages. A decision on that, they said, should await a final ruling on the marriages' constitutionality.The case is In re Marriage Cases, S147999
December 20, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on discrimination.
We are delighted that the court ruled so quickly and unanimously to grant review.
The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on discrimination.The move by all seven justices sets aside a lower court's decision in October that upheld state laws banning gays and lesbians from marrying one another.The high court will consider a total of six consolidated cases: four filed by the city of San Francisco and 19 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, and two filed by traditional values groups opposing such a right.No date has been set yet for a hearing on the issue. Briefs on the matter are due by this spring and the outcome is not likely until late next year.Massachusetts is currently the only state that authorizes same-sex marriage.Although the state Supreme Court grants review of only a small percentage of the cases appealed to it, its decision to take up the marriage cases was not a surprise.The review was sought not only by same-sex marriage supporters, but also, in an unusual move, by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who won the lower court decision.Lockyer, who has defended the state marriage laws, filed a brief earlier this month urging that a decision by the state's highest court was needed to provide "finality and certainty for the citizens of California."Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said Wednsday that "Californians need and deserve clarity on this issue as soon as possible. People of this state have rightly expected all along that clarity would be provided by the state Supreme Court."The justices will review an October decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that California marriage laws do not discriminate because gays and lesbians get most all the rights of marriage the state confers to heterosexual married couples.The appeals ourt majority said the Legislature and voters had a rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples while at the same time giving same-sex couples equal benefits through the state's domestic partnership system.Justice William McGuinness wrote in that ruling, "Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage."San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the marriage debate in the national spotlight by allowing same-sex couples to get married at City Hall in 2004. California's justices halted the wedding spree and voided the 4,037 marriage licenses while sidestepping the core constitutional question. They ruled the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law. The justices, however, invited a challenge to whether banning same-sex marriage was discrimination a challenge that reached the court Wednesday after it meandered through the trial and appellate courts.Whether prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians is the biggest question surrounding marriage the California Supreme Court has faced since 1948. That year, seven different justices became the first court in the nation to declare laws banning mixed-race marriages unconstitutional discrimination.Had the high court not taken the case, the lower court's decision would have stood.San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city was "extremely gratified" the justices are reviewing the case."Marriage equality -- It's perhaps the major civil rights issue of our time," he said, "and the state's highest court clearly recognizes it should have the final word on the issue in California."Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said, "We are delighted that the court ruled so quickly and unanimously to grant review.""We are very hopeful the court will stand up for basic fairness and bring an end to the current ban on marriage for an entire group of Californians," added Minter, who represents 11 gay and lesbian couples who filed one of the lawsuits before the court.Randy Thomasson, spokesman for Voteyesmarriage.com, a group opposing same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the court's move."If the law ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. "This is bad news for marriage and the voters of California who already passed a state law reaffirming that marriage is a natural and beautiful institution between a man and a woman."The court's recent record on gay and lesbian rights is mixed. In several landmark cases, the justices have concluded that gays and lesbians have the same rights as married couples to sue for wrongful death, to adopt children and to seek child support from former partners.Last year, the court unanimously ruled, under a sweeping domestic partner law that took effect Jan. 1, 2005, businesses must offer spousal discounts to same-sex domestic partners if it offers those benefits to married couples."The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses," wrote Justice Carlos Moreno, the court's only Democrat, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.But in 1998, before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-appointee Carol Corrigan and Moreno took the bench, the seven-member court unanimously sided with the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which barred an openly gay man from being an assistant scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation. The justices held that California civil rights laws did not apply to the Scouts, and the Scouts had a First Amendment right to associate with whomever it chose.The justices, however, were careful not to condone the Boy Scouts. "The resolution of this matter," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "does not turn on our personal views of the wisdom or morality of the actions or policies that are challenged in this case."None of those cases, however, has focused squarely on whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry as barred by 1977 legislation and a 2000 voter-approved measure. In Proposition 22, 61 percent of voters declared marriage as a union between a man and woman.Glen Lavy, a lawyer for the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, said, "We hope the court will recognize that it is valid to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That is what marriage has always meant in California.""The people of California spoke in 2000," he said, "and the people's voice should be heard. Political special interests shouldn't trump their voice regarding what's in the best interests of families and children."The closest the court came to deciding the issue was in its 2004 ruling that Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. In a 5-2 vote, the court also nullified the marriages.Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a 1994 Republican appointed by Wilson, and Justice Joyce Kennard, a Republican appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989, wrote separately the court should not nullify the marriages. A decision on that, they said, should await a final ruling on the marriages' constitutionality.The case is In re Marriage Cases, S147999
December 20, 2006
SJC hears oral arguments
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
SJC hears oral arguments in gay marriage case
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff, and Andrew Ryan, Globe Correspondent
Both sides in a legal battle over a proposed ballot initiative to ban gay marriage acknowledged today that the Supreme Judicial Court can not force the Legislature to take a vote.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks told the seven justices in oral arguments this morning that even though the architects of state ballot initiatives intended lawmakers to bring the measures to a vote, the court could not legally force legislators to act before their term expires on Jan. 2. The people's only recourse, Sacks said, was to vote for different senators and representatives next election.
"Our position is that judicial relief is not available," said Sacks, who argued on behalf of Senate President Robert Travaglini and the Secretary of State.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Governor Mitt Romney, charges that legislators subverted the state constitution on Nov. 9 when they met in joint session and took no action on a voter-initiative petition to ban gay marriage.
John Hanify, a lawyer representing Romney and 10 other plaintiffs, also gave some ground. He conceded that the court could not force the Legislature to take a vote, even though that is what backers of the ban said they wanted when they filed suit last month.
Hanify did say, however, that the court could pressure lawmakers to act by spelling out the intentions of Article 48, the provision in the constitution that permits citizen initiatives.
"We're not asking you to tell the Legislature how to do their business," he said. "We're only asking you to declare what their constitutional obligations are."
The court did not issue a decision, but supporters of the ballot initiative say they want one before the last day of the legislative session on Jan. 2.
Backers of a constitutional amendment had collected 170,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot in 2008. To qualify for a statewide referendum, however, a measure needs the support of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions. Instead of acting on the measure, the Legislature moved to recess the joint session until Jan. 2.
Travaglini gave an interview that aired this morning on WBUR in which he said he thought the measure should be brought to a vote.
"This vote will be based on personal beliefs," said Travaglini. "I do believe, however, in my own personal and political professional view that a vote is the appropriate action to take on the measure, one way or the other."
Travaglini was one of the 87 lawmakers who voted against taking a recess last November before the Legislature ruled on the proposed ballot initiative.
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk
SJC hears oral arguments in gay marriage case
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff, and Andrew Ryan, Globe Correspondent
Both sides in a legal battle over a proposed ballot initiative to ban gay marriage acknowledged today that the Supreme Judicial Court can not force the Legislature to take a vote.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks told the seven justices in oral arguments this morning that even though the architects of state ballot initiatives intended lawmakers to bring the measures to a vote, the court could not legally force legislators to act before their term expires on Jan. 2. The people's only recourse, Sacks said, was to vote for different senators and representatives next election.
"Our position is that judicial relief is not available," said Sacks, who argued on behalf of Senate President Robert Travaglini and the Secretary of State.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Governor Mitt Romney, charges that legislators subverted the state constitution on Nov. 9 when they met in joint session and took no action on a voter-initiative petition to ban gay marriage.
John Hanify, a lawyer representing Romney and 10 other plaintiffs, also gave some ground. He conceded that the court could not force the Legislature to take a vote, even though that is what backers of the ban said they wanted when they filed suit last month.
Hanify did say, however, that the court could pressure lawmakers to act by spelling out the intentions of Article 48, the provision in the constitution that permits citizen initiatives.
"We're not asking you to tell the Legislature how to do their business," he said. "We're only asking you to declare what their constitutional obligations are."
The court did not issue a decision, but supporters of the ballot initiative say they want one before the last day of the legislative session on Jan. 2.
Backers of a constitutional amendment had collected 170,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot in 2008. To qualify for a statewide referendum, however, a measure needs the support of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions. Instead of acting on the measure, the Legislature moved to recess the joint session until Jan. 2.
Travaglini gave an interview that aired this morning on WBUR in which he said he thought the measure should be brought to a vote.
"This vote will be based on personal beliefs," said Travaglini. "I do believe, however, in my own personal and political professional view that a vote is the appropriate action to take on the measure, one way or the other."
Travaglini was one of the 87 lawmakers who voted against taking a recess last November before the Legislature ruled on the proposed ballot initiative.
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk
California's top court to review gay marriage ban
California's top court to review gay marriage ban
Wed Dec 20, 5:35 PM ET
California's highest court said on Wednesday it would consider a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages, a legal fight stemming from marriage licenses granted to homosexual couples two years ago by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
A California appeals court in October upheld the state's voter-approved ban, which gay activists said they would appeal. Legal experts had expected the California Supreme Court to accept petitions to review the decision.
Newsom defied the state's ban by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move that triggered an intense national debate over whether gays should be allowed marry.
Since then California's Democrat-led legislature has sided with gay activists, approving legislation to permit same-sex nuptials. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislation, saying the issue should be left to voters or the courts.
The state's voters in 2000 approved a ballot measure defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. But domestic partnership legislation since then has afforded gay couples in California many of the same privileges enjoyed by married couples.
New Jersey lawmakers last week approved same-sex civil unions, giving gay and lesbian couples the same rights as married partners without allowing the relationships to be called "marriage."
Only Massachusetts has legalized marriage between same-sex partners.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limite
Wed Dec 20, 5:35 PM ET
California's highest court said on Wednesday it would consider a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages, a legal fight stemming from marriage licenses granted to homosexual couples two years ago by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
A California appeals court in October upheld the state's voter-approved ban, which gay activists said they would appeal. Legal experts had expected the California Supreme Court to accept petitions to review the decision.
Newsom defied the state's ban by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move that triggered an intense national debate over whether gays should be allowed marry.
Since then California's Democrat-led legislature has sided with gay activists, approving legislation to permit same-sex nuptials. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislation, saying the issue should be left to voters or the courts.
The state's voters in 2000 approved a ballot measure defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. But domestic partnership legislation since then has afforded gay couples in California many of the same privileges enjoyed by married couples.
New Jersey lawmakers last week approved same-sex civil unions, giving gay and lesbian couples the same rights as married partners without allowing the relationships to be called "marriage."
Only Massachusetts has legalized marriage between same-sex partners.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limite
December 19, 2006
Black-white,gay straight...moral issue the same
Article published Dec 18, 2006
Black-white, gay-straight . . . moral issue is the same
By Leonard Pitts Jr. McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
This is for a reader who demands to know why I write about gay issues. His conclusion is that I must secretly be gay myself.
Actually, he doesn't express himself quite that civilly. To the contrary, his e-mails - which, until recently, were arriving at the rate of about one a week - evince a juvenility that would embarrass a reasonably intelligent fifth-grader. The most recent one, for example, carried a salutation reading, "Hi Mrs. Pitts."
We're talking about the kind of thing for which delete buttons were invented. So you may wonder why I bring it to your attention, especially since acknowledging a person like this only encourages him. It's simple, actually: He raises an interesting question that deserves an answer.
If from that you conclude (or fear) you're about to read a stirring defense of my manly male masculinity, no. The guy is free to believe what he wishes; I really don't care. And here, let me digress to confess that, though I refer to him using masculine pronouns, I actually don't know if he's a he because his notes have been anonymous. Still, I assume it's a guy because the level of sexual insecurity the e-mails suggest strikes me as - boy, am I going to get in trouble for this - rather guy-specific.
Anyway, to get back to the point, I'm not here to argue sexuality. I just find myself intrigued by the idea that if you're not gay, you shouldn't care about gay rights.
The most concise answer I can give is cribbed from what a white kid said 40 or so years ago, as white college students were risking their lives to travel South and register black people to vote. Somebody asked why. He said he acted from an understanding that his freedom was bound up with the freedom of every other man.
I know it sounds cornier than Kellogg's, but that's pretty much how I feel.
I know also that some folks are touchy about anything seeming to equate the black civil rights movement with the gay one. And no, gay people were not kidnapped from Gay Land and sold into slavery, nor lynched by the thousands. On the other hand, they do know something about housing discrimination, they do know job discrimination, they do know murder for the sin of existence, they do know the denial of civil rights and they do know what it is like to be used as scapegoat and boogeyman by demagogues and political opportunists.
They know enough of what I know that I can't ignore it. See, I have yet to learn how to segregate my moral concerns. It seems to me if I abhor intolerance, discrimination and hatred when they affect people who look like me, I must also abhor them when they affect people who do not. For that matter, I must abhor them even when they benefit me. Otherwise, what I claim as moral authority is really just self-interest in disguise.
Among the things we seem to have lost in the years since that white kid made his stand is the ability, the imagination, the willingness to put ourselves into the skin of those who are not like us. I find it telling that Vice President Dick Cheney hews to the hard conservative line on virtually every social issue, except gay marriage. It is, of course, no coincidence that Cheney has a daughter who is a lesbian. Which tells me his position is based not on principle but, rather, on loving his daughter.
It is a fine thing to love your daughter. I would argue, however, that it is also a fine thing and in some ways, a finer thing, to love your neighbor's daughter, no matter her sexual orientation, religion, race, creed or economic status - and to want her freedom as eagerly as you want your own.
I believe in moral coherence. And Rule No. 1 is, you cannot assert your own humanity, then turn right around and deny someone else's.
If that makes me gay, fine.
As my anonymous correspondent ably demonstrates, there are worse things to be.
Black-white, gay-straight . . . moral issue is the same
By Leonard Pitts Jr. McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
This is for a reader who demands to know why I write about gay issues. His conclusion is that I must secretly be gay myself.
Actually, he doesn't express himself quite that civilly. To the contrary, his e-mails - which, until recently, were arriving at the rate of about one a week - evince a juvenility that would embarrass a reasonably intelligent fifth-grader. The most recent one, for example, carried a salutation reading, "Hi Mrs. Pitts."
We're talking about the kind of thing for which delete buttons were invented. So you may wonder why I bring it to your attention, especially since acknowledging a person like this only encourages him. It's simple, actually: He raises an interesting question that deserves an answer.
If from that you conclude (or fear) you're about to read a stirring defense of my manly male masculinity, no. The guy is free to believe what he wishes; I really don't care. And here, let me digress to confess that, though I refer to him using masculine pronouns, I actually don't know if he's a he because his notes have been anonymous. Still, I assume it's a guy because the level of sexual insecurity the e-mails suggest strikes me as - boy, am I going to get in trouble for this - rather guy-specific.
Anyway, to get back to the point, I'm not here to argue sexuality. I just find myself intrigued by the idea that if you're not gay, you shouldn't care about gay rights.
The most concise answer I can give is cribbed from what a white kid said 40 or so years ago, as white college students were risking their lives to travel South and register black people to vote. Somebody asked why. He said he acted from an understanding that his freedom was bound up with the freedom of every other man.
I know it sounds cornier than Kellogg's, but that's pretty much how I feel.
I know also that some folks are touchy about anything seeming to equate the black civil rights movement with the gay one. And no, gay people were not kidnapped from Gay Land and sold into slavery, nor lynched by the thousands. On the other hand, they do know something about housing discrimination, they do know job discrimination, they do know murder for the sin of existence, they do know the denial of civil rights and they do know what it is like to be used as scapegoat and boogeyman by demagogues and political opportunists.
They know enough of what I know that I can't ignore it. See, I have yet to learn how to segregate my moral concerns. It seems to me if I abhor intolerance, discrimination and hatred when they affect people who look like me, I must also abhor them when they affect people who do not. For that matter, I must abhor them even when they benefit me. Otherwise, what I claim as moral authority is really just self-interest in disguise.
Among the things we seem to have lost in the years since that white kid made his stand is the ability, the imagination, the willingness to put ourselves into the skin of those who are not like us. I find it telling that Vice President Dick Cheney hews to the hard conservative line on virtually every social issue, except gay marriage. It is, of course, no coincidence that Cheney has a daughter who is a lesbian. Which tells me his position is based not on principle but, rather, on loving his daughter.
It is a fine thing to love your daughter. I would argue, however, that it is also a fine thing and in some ways, a finer thing, to love your neighbor's daughter, no matter her sexual orientation, religion, race, creed or economic status - and to want her freedom as eagerly as you want your own.
I believe in moral coherence. And Rule No. 1 is, you cannot assert your own humanity, then turn right around and deny someone else's.
If that makes me gay, fine.
As my anonymous correspondent ably demonstrates, there are worse things to be.
Corzine Worried Mayors Will Refuse Civil Unions
Corzine Worried Mayors Will Refuse Civil Unions
wcbstv.com
December 18, 2006
I'm not doing it. I'm daring them to make me do it.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, D-N.J., said he hopes to sign civil unions into law on Thursday, which would give gay couples the same rights as married couples, but is worried that mayors will be able to refuse to conduct the ceremonies. "That would not be equal treatment under the law, but I would like to understand what the rights and obligations are," Corzine said Monday, adding that his lawyers were reviewing the bill. The legislation would make New Jersey one of five states with the most benefits and protections for gay couples, including the right to have health insurance through a partner's employer. Mayors aren't required under state law to perform marriages, and the civil unions bill doesn't alter that discretion. Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has said he will not perform the ceremonies and vowed Monday to not back down. "This is the first time in history an American is being told to perform a ritualistic ceremony no matter what you believe in," Lonegan said. "I'm not doing it. I'm daring them to make me do it." The Legislature approved civil unions Thursday in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. In the October ruling, the court gave lawmakers six months to act and left it to them to decide whether to call the gay unions "marriage" or something else. Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer with expertise in marriage law, said mayors who perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples but refuse ceremonies for gay couples won't violate the civil union law but may violate anti-discrimination laws. "It would not be equal treatment," Hyland said. "Mayors have a right to conduct wedding ceremonies or not to conduct them, but I think to say we're only going to conduct certain types of ceremonies opens the door pretty widely. It does raise discrimination questions." If Corzine signs the bill Thursday as he hopes, the law would become effective Feb. 19. Couples would face a three-day waiting period before they can register their unions. The governor said he wasn't sure what action he would take if his lawyers tell him the legislation allows mayors to reject civilunion requests. Corzine could conditionally veto the bill, under which it would be sent back to lawmakers for revision. Or, he could sign it and hope lawmakers amend it. Steven Goldstein, chairman of gay rights group Garden State Equality, praised Corzine for considering the issue. He contended that, had lawmakers called the unions "marriages" in the legislation, there would be no question over whether mayors could balk. Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the organization that represents mayors andmunicipal officials was reviewing the bill. He said his group is looking into what penalties mayors might face if they refuse toperform civil unions. "We have asked our attorneys to look into it," Dressel said. "But nothing will be definitive until the governor signs the bill into law." In the United States, only Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, and California offers domestic partnerships that have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Since 2004, New Jersey has had a more limited version of domestic partnerships. Among the benefits to be conferred on gay couples under New Jersey's civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.
Copyright © 2006 wcbstv.com, All Rights Reserved
wcbstv.com
December 18, 2006
I'm not doing it. I'm daring them to make me do it.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, D-N.J., said he hopes to sign civil unions into law on Thursday, which would give gay couples the same rights as married couples, but is worried that mayors will be able to refuse to conduct the ceremonies. "That would not be equal treatment under the law, but I would like to understand what the rights and obligations are," Corzine said Monday, adding that his lawyers were reviewing the bill. The legislation would make New Jersey one of five states with the most benefits and protections for gay couples, including the right to have health insurance through a partner's employer. Mayors aren't required under state law to perform marriages, and the civil unions bill doesn't alter that discretion. Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has said he will not perform the ceremonies and vowed Monday to not back down. "This is the first time in history an American is being told to perform a ritualistic ceremony no matter what you believe in," Lonegan said. "I'm not doing it. I'm daring them to make me do it." The Legislature approved civil unions Thursday in response to a state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. In the October ruling, the court gave lawmakers six months to act and left it to them to decide whether to call the gay unions "marriage" or something else. Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer with expertise in marriage law, said mayors who perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples but refuse ceremonies for gay couples won't violate the civil union law but may violate anti-discrimination laws. "It would not be equal treatment," Hyland said. "Mayors have a right to conduct wedding ceremonies or not to conduct them, but I think to say we're only going to conduct certain types of ceremonies opens the door pretty widely. It does raise discrimination questions." If Corzine signs the bill Thursday as he hopes, the law would become effective Feb. 19. Couples would face a three-day waiting period before they can register their unions. The governor said he wasn't sure what action he would take if his lawyers tell him the legislation allows mayors to reject civilunion requests. Corzine could conditionally veto the bill, under which it would be sent back to lawmakers for revision. Or, he could sign it and hope lawmakers amend it. Steven Goldstein, chairman of gay rights group Garden State Equality, praised Corzine for considering the issue. He contended that, had lawmakers called the unions "marriages" in the legislation, there would be no question over whether mayors could balk. Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the organization that represents mayors andmunicipal officials was reviewing the bill. He said his group is looking into what penalties mayors might face if they refuse toperform civil unions. "We have asked our attorneys to look into it," Dressel said. "But nothing will be definitive until the governor signs the bill into law." In the United States, only Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, and California offers domestic partnerships that have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Since 2004, New Jersey has had a more limited version of domestic partnerships. Among the benefits to be conferred on gay couples under New Jersey's civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.
Copyright © 2006 wcbstv.com, All Rights Reserved
December 18, 2006
Same sex advocate attacked at rally
Same Sex advocate attacked at marriage rally in Mass.
Worcester, Massachusetts) A same-sex marriage advocate is nursing cuts and bruises after being attacked by aleading advocate of a constitutional amendment to endgay marriage in the only state where it is legal.Sarah Loy, 27, went to a rally organized byVoteOnMarriage in front of Worcester City Hall, westof Boston, on the weekend. The demonstration was oneof several behind held on weekends throughoutMassachusetts aimed at pressuring the Legislature tovote on the proposed amendment.At a lectern Larry Cirignano, leader of theBoston-based Catholic Citizenship group had justfinished leading the Pledge of Allegiance when hespotted Loy near the front of the crowd with othersupporters of gay marriage staging a counter protest.Loy was carrying a sign reading “No discrimination inthe Constitution”. Other members of her group wereyelling “You lost, go home, get over it,” at thecrowd.The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports thatCirignano rushed from behind the lectern and tackledLoy to the ground. “You need to get out. You need toget out of here right now,” he allegedly told her asher head was pushed into the concrete sidewalk.As Loy lay bruised and bloodied on the sidewalkCirignano reportedly returned to lectern, joiningother leaders of the protest in condemning same-sexmarriage and demanding the proposed amendment be puton the ballot.Other members of her group helped Loy from the scene.Loy who is straight and a supporter of same-sexmarriage, had gone to the protest with her husbandDavid. Police have interviewed Loy and others on the bothsides of the marriage issue and charges may be laid.Gay activist Tom Lang said this rally seemed to have adifferent component from others the groups held inprevious weeks. "The CatholicCitizenship/VoteOnMarriage supporters seemed to beangry and aggressive," he said.Lang operates KnowThyNeighbor.org which has listed thenames of the 170,000 people who signed petitions insupport of the proposed amendment.Most of the speeches attacked lawmakers who voted torecess a joint session of the House and Senate toconsider the amendment."Catholic Citizenship volunteers then handed out'Wanted Posters' to onlookers which were printed outwith Legislator's photos and home phone on them," saidLang.Last weekend people who attended a VoteOnMarriagerally in Springfield were told they could not gatherin front of city hall because they did not have alicense. An LGBT civil rights organization had appliedfor a license and was granted one. VoteOnMarriage was forced to hold its protest acrossthe street while MassEquality staged its pro same-sexmarriage demonstration at city hall.Last month lawmakers refused to vote on the proposedamendment. The Legislature meeting in a special jointsession called a Constitutional Convention recesseduntil January 2, without taking a vote. (story) January 2 is the final day in the current session andit is expected no vote will be held, effectivelykilling the measure.Gov. Mitt Romney has asked the state's highest courtfor an order placing a proposed amendment that wouldban same-sex marriage on the ballot without theapproval of the legislature.The case will be heard by the full Supreme JudicialCourt on Wednesday.Unless Romney is able to convince the court to forcethe legislature to act the proposed amendment islikely dead.Meanwhile, VoteOnMarriage, made up of the RomanCatholic and evangelical church groups, has filed afederal lawsuit accusing the lawmakers of violatingtheir constitutional duty when they voted to recessthe Constitutional Convention. (story)
Worcester, Massachusetts) A same-sex marriage advocate is nursing cuts and bruises after being attacked by aleading advocate of a constitutional amendment to endgay marriage in the only state where it is legal.Sarah Loy, 27, went to a rally organized byVoteOnMarriage in front of Worcester City Hall, westof Boston, on the weekend. The demonstration was oneof several behind held on weekends throughoutMassachusetts aimed at pressuring the Legislature tovote on the proposed amendment.At a lectern Larry Cirignano, leader of theBoston-based Catholic Citizenship group had justfinished leading the Pledge of Allegiance when hespotted Loy near the front of the crowd with othersupporters of gay marriage staging a counter protest.Loy was carrying a sign reading “No discrimination inthe Constitution”. Other members of her group wereyelling “You lost, go home, get over it,” at thecrowd.The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports thatCirignano rushed from behind the lectern and tackledLoy to the ground. “You need to get out. You need toget out of here right now,” he allegedly told her asher head was pushed into the concrete sidewalk.As Loy lay bruised and bloodied on the sidewalkCirignano reportedly returned to lectern, joiningother leaders of the protest in condemning same-sexmarriage and demanding the proposed amendment be puton the ballot.Other members of her group helped Loy from the scene.Loy who is straight and a supporter of same-sexmarriage, had gone to the protest with her husbandDavid. Police have interviewed Loy and others on the bothsides of the marriage issue and charges may be laid.Gay activist Tom Lang said this rally seemed to have adifferent component from others the groups held inprevious weeks. "The CatholicCitizenship/VoteOnMarriage supporters seemed to beangry and aggressive," he said.Lang operates KnowThyNeighbor.org which has listed thenames of the 170,000 people who signed petitions insupport of the proposed amendment.Most of the speeches attacked lawmakers who voted torecess a joint session of the House and Senate toconsider the amendment."Catholic Citizenship volunteers then handed out'Wanted Posters' to onlookers which were printed outwith Legislator's photos and home phone on them," saidLang.Last weekend people who attended a VoteOnMarriagerally in Springfield were told they could not gatherin front of city hall because they did not have alicense. An LGBT civil rights organization had appliedfor a license and was granted one. VoteOnMarriage was forced to hold its protest acrossthe street while MassEquality staged its pro same-sexmarriage demonstration at city hall.Last month lawmakers refused to vote on the proposedamendment. The Legislature meeting in a special jointsession called a Constitutional Convention recesseduntil January 2, without taking a vote. (story) January 2 is the final day in the current session andit is expected no vote will be held, effectivelykilling the measure.Gov. Mitt Romney has asked the state's highest courtfor an order placing a proposed amendment that wouldban same-sex marriage on the ballot without theapproval of the legislature.The case will be heard by the full Supreme JudicialCourt on Wednesday.Unless Romney is able to convince the court to forcethe legislature to act the proposed amendment islikely dead.Meanwhile, VoteOnMarriage, made up of the RomanCatholic and evangelical church groups, has filed afederal lawsuit accusing the lawmakers of violatingtheir constitutional duty when they voted to recessthe Constitutional Convention. (story)
December 16, 2006
Civil Unions won't five NJ couples all benefits of marriage
Civil unions won't give NJ gay couples all benefits of marriage
(Trenton, NJ - AP, December 16, 2006) - With New Jersey on the verge of passing a civil unions law for same-sex couples, Rick Connolly called his insurance company to see if he could add his partner of 23 years to his homeowner's policy.
His partner could be added, Connolly was told, but not the same way as a spouse. The difference: If Connolly died, his partner would not be able to keep the policy.
The response is example of the confusion and frustration that might be in store for any gay couples who expect civil unions in New Jersey will give them the same rights as married couples.
"This is the first time in my life I've felt like going to a politician and saying, 'What's going on here?"' said Connolly, 63, of East Hanover, a former Army officer who is now retired from a career in the telephone industry.
The state Legislature, under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, approved the civil unions bill Thursday. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he anticipates signing it, but has not said when.
For gay and lesbian couples, civil unions represent an upgrade from the domestic partnerships that the state has offered since 2004. Instead of getting a handful of benefits, the couples would be entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage that the state can confer.
Many of those rights come into play only in emergencies or major life changes. Among them are adoption rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision-making rights, alimony rights and the right not to testify against a partner in court.
But there are areas where the state does not have control.
Gay couples in New Jersey will not be married - or entitled to the same benefits - in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer who published a legal guide to New Jersey's domestic partnership, said federal taxes would be complicated for gay couples in New Jersey.
They won't be able to file their federal returns jointly. But to file jointly on their state tax forms, they will still need to fill out the joint federal forms and send them to New Jersey, Hyland said.
Also, the civil unions bill requires companies that offer health insurance to spouses of their employees also offer it to civil union partners of workers. But for the civil union partner - unlike a spouse - those benefits would have to be reported as income to the IRS and would be subject to taxes, Hyland said.
Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits and may not be able to collect their pensions, which fall under federal regulation, said Felice T. Londa, an Elizabeth-based family lawyer who represents many same-sex couples.
There's another major tax issue regarding breakups of the relationships. Under federal law, alimony is not taxed.
But support paid from one partner to another when civil unions are dissolved would likely be subject to federal gift taxes, said Daniel Serviss, a Woodbridge-based matrimonial lawyer.
Additionally, the couples in civil unions won't necessarily have those unions recognized when they travel in states outside of New Jersey.
David S. Buckel, a Lambda Legal lawyer, said he's heard of couples planning vacations that would take them only to Massachusetts, which lets gay couples marry, and California, Connecticut and Vermont, which have laws similar to the one headed for passage in New Jersey.
Even if gay couples in New Jersey could marry, the rights they have in the Garden State might not be recognized under the laws of the federal government or other states, experts say.
But Londa said marriage would put them in better position to sue for those rights. "If it were a marriage," she said. "It gives you standing to challenge. That's the issue. If you call us anything else, you can't challenge federal laws that deny us equal rights."
Gay rights advocates expect more stories like Connolly's, too.
Connolly said he and his partner have been careful to protect each other. They registered as domestic partners on July 10, 2004 - the first day New Jersey couples could do so legally. They have power-of-attorney agreements that give each other the rights to each other's property and to make medical decisions for one another - a step most married couples would not need to take.
Connolly said making sure insurance is in order is another precaution he's taking to protect his partner.
A spokesman for his insurance company, USAA, a San Antonio-based firm that covers current and former military members and their families, said the company is aware of the civil union legislation in New Jersey.
"We follow legislation in all the different states. We're complying with it 100 percent," said spokesman David Snowden.
He also said that in a case like Connolly's, a non-married partner in a domestic partnership or civil union could be added to the policy, but could not keep it if the first partner died.
Lawyers say the company's position would probably break New Jersey law because it would treat civil union couples and married couples differently.
It's largely up to New Jersey officials to educate companies who do business in the state about civil unions and what they mean - and to enforce the rights, according to insurance industry officials.
That makes Connolly nervous.
"Will state regulators tell companies to get out of New Jersey if they don't grant rights in New Jersey?" he asked.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved
(Trenton, NJ - AP, December 16, 2006) - With New Jersey on the verge of passing a civil unions law for same-sex couples, Rick Connolly called his insurance company to see if he could add his partner of 23 years to his homeowner's policy.
His partner could be added, Connolly was told, but not the same way as a spouse. The difference: If Connolly died, his partner would not be able to keep the policy.
The response is example of the confusion and frustration that might be in store for any gay couples who expect civil unions in New Jersey will give them the same rights as married couples.
"This is the first time in my life I've felt like going to a politician and saying, 'What's going on here?"' said Connolly, 63, of East Hanover, a former Army officer who is now retired from a career in the telephone industry.
The state Legislature, under pressure from New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, approved the civil unions bill Thursday. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he anticipates signing it, but has not said when.
For gay and lesbian couples, civil unions represent an upgrade from the domestic partnerships that the state has offered since 2004. Instead of getting a handful of benefits, the couples would be entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage that the state can confer.
Many of those rights come into play only in emergencies or major life changes. Among them are adoption rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, medical decision-making rights, alimony rights and the right not to testify against a partner in court.
But there are areas where the state does not have control.
Gay couples in New Jersey will not be married - or entitled to the same benefits - in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Stephen Hyland, a Princeton lawyer who published a legal guide to New Jersey's domestic partnership, said federal taxes would be complicated for gay couples in New Jersey.
They won't be able to file their federal returns jointly. But to file jointly on their state tax forms, they will still need to fill out the joint federal forms and send them to New Jersey, Hyland said.
Also, the civil unions bill requires companies that offer health insurance to spouses of their employees also offer it to civil union partners of workers. But for the civil union partner - unlike a spouse - those benefits would have to be reported as income to the IRS and would be subject to taxes, Hyland said.
Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits and may not be able to collect their pensions, which fall under federal regulation, said Felice T. Londa, an Elizabeth-based family lawyer who represents many same-sex couples.
There's another major tax issue regarding breakups of the relationships. Under federal law, alimony is not taxed.
But support paid from one partner to another when civil unions are dissolved would likely be subject to federal gift taxes, said Daniel Serviss, a Woodbridge-based matrimonial lawyer.
Additionally, the couples in civil unions won't necessarily have those unions recognized when they travel in states outside of New Jersey.
David S. Buckel, a Lambda Legal lawyer, said he's heard of couples planning vacations that would take them only to Massachusetts, which lets gay couples marry, and California, Connecticut and Vermont, which have laws similar to the one headed for passage in New Jersey.
Even if gay couples in New Jersey could marry, the rights they have in the Garden State might not be recognized under the laws of the federal government or other states, experts say.
But Londa said marriage would put them in better position to sue for those rights. "If it were a marriage," she said. "It gives you standing to challenge. That's the issue. If you call us anything else, you can't challenge federal laws that deny us equal rights."
Gay rights advocates expect more stories like Connolly's, too.
Connolly said he and his partner have been careful to protect each other. They registered as domestic partners on July 10, 2004 - the first day New Jersey couples could do so legally. They have power-of-attorney agreements that give each other the rights to each other's property and to make medical decisions for one another - a step most married couples would not need to take.
Connolly said making sure insurance is in order is another precaution he's taking to protect his partner.
A spokesman for his insurance company, USAA, a San Antonio-based firm that covers current and former military members and their families, said the company is aware of the civil union legislation in New Jersey.
"We follow legislation in all the different states. We're complying with it 100 percent," said spokesman David Snowden.
He also said that in a case like Connolly's, a non-married partner in a domestic partnership or civil union could be added to the policy, but could not keep it if the first partner died.
Lawyers say the company's position would probably break New Jersey law because it would treat civil union couples and married couples differently.
It's largely up to New Jersey officials to educate companies who do business in the state about civil unions and what they mean - and to enforce the rights, according to insurance industry officials.
That makes Connolly nervous.
"Will state regulators tell companies to get out of New Jersey if they don't grant rights in New Jersey?" he asked.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved
December 14, 2006
NJ firms would make big money if gay marriage is allowed
Study: NJ firms would make big money if gay marriage is allowed
December 13, 2006, 2:48 PM ESTLOS ANGELES -- New Jersey florists, caterers, hotels and other businesses would bring in more than $100 million in additional revenue per year if the state allowed gay couples to marry there, according to a study by researchers at UCLA. The study was released Wednesday and appears to be on the verge of making a moot point. Both houses of the New Jersey state Legislature were expected to pass a bill Thursday allowing civil unions, giving gay couples in the state all the legal protections of marriage without calling it marriage. The study's author, M.V. Lee Badgett, of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, figured that half of New Jersey's 16,600 gay couples, plus more than 16,000 from neighboring New York and Pennsylvania and nearly 43,000 from around the country would tie the knot in the Garden State over three years. The financial impact of civil unions was not addressed in the study. However, it is expected that some couples may still have wedding-like ceremonies and some may still travel from other states to register. While it might not be many couple's dream destination for a wedding, New Jersey would have a corner on the market if lawmakers reversed course and allowed gay marriages. Currently, 45 states have laws or constitutional amendments that bar gay marriage. Only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry, but it prohibits couples whose marriages would not be recognized in their home state from marrying there _ a factor that has limited wedding tourism there. The study figured that New Jersey gay couples would spend an average of $9,000 on their weddings. Out-of-staters would spend between $3,500 and $4,200 to marry, depending on how far they have to travel. The total revenue generated in the state would be $307 million over three years. The state's take in sales taxes would be at least $7 million per year.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
December 13, 2006, 2:48 PM ESTLOS ANGELES -- New Jersey florists, caterers, hotels and other businesses would bring in more than $100 million in additional revenue per year if the state allowed gay couples to marry there, according to a study by researchers at UCLA. The study was released Wednesday and appears to be on the verge of making a moot point. Both houses of the New Jersey state Legislature were expected to pass a bill Thursday allowing civil unions, giving gay couples in the state all the legal protections of marriage without calling it marriage. The study's author, M.V. Lee Badgett, of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, figured that half of New Jersey's 16,600 gay couples, plus more than 16,000 from neighboring New York and Pennsylvania and nearly 43,000 from around the country would tie the knot in the Garden State over three years. The financial impact of civil unions was not addressed in the study. However, it is expected that some couples may still have wedding-like ceremonies and some may still travel from other states to register. While it might not be many couple's dream destination for a wedding, New Jersey would have a corner on the market if lawmakers reversed course and allowed gay marriages. Currently, 45 states have laws or constitutional amendments that bar gay marriage. Only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry, but it prohibits couples whose marriages would not be recognized in their home state from marrying there _ a factor that has limited wedding tourism there. The study figured that New Jersey gay couples would spend an average of $9,000 on their weddings. Out-of-staters would spend between $3,500 and $4,200 to marry, depending on how far they have to travel. The total revenue generated in the state would be $307 million over three years. The state's take in sales taxes would be at least $7 million per year.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
Dobts persist as NJ Lawmkers Move Forwars on Civil Union
Doubts Persist as N.J. Lawmakers Move Forward on Civil Union
By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: December 14, 2006
TRENTON, Dec. 13 — With New Jersey’s Legislature set to vote Thursday to establish civil unions rather than same-sex marriages, it remains unclear whether this approach can actually fulfill the mandate from the state’s Supreme Court to guarantee the same rights and benefits for gay and straight couples.
The New Jersey State Bar Association is one of several organizations that have criticized the proposed civil union law, saying in a statement that it “will create a separate, unequal and unnecessarily complex legal scheme” that does not satisfy the Supreme Court’s directive.
Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage debate are uneasy about the legislation, which was introduced just nine days ago and has seen little scrutiny, with only two committee hearings before the scheduled floor debate. And among gay couples who plan to obtain civil unions, as well as lawyers who work on civil rights issues, questions about a new, parallel institution are piling up.
The most likely problems, they say, will arise beyond the state’s borders — beyond the reach of its Supreme Court and the Legislature. The biggest among many unknowns is how New York will treat the unions, no small question in New Jersey, which has 335,000 residents who work in New York. (An additional 117,000 work in Pennsylvania.)
The answer seemed clear when the New York Attorney General’s Office said in an advisory opinion in 2004 that New York should recognize a same-sex marriage “or its legal equivalent” from another state.
But last fall, in a case involving a gay couple from New York who had entered a civil union in Vermont, a New York appellate court refused to recognize the surviving partner as a spouse for the purpose of filing a wrongful death suit. The court pointed out that the Vermont Legislature created a separate institution rather than allow gays and lesbians to marry, implying the couples can be treated differently.
Spokesmen for the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who will become governor in January, said they could not expand on the 2004 advisory opinion or comment on the New Jersey law until it is in place.
Most states recognize marriages legally performed in another state even if they would otherwise be invalid — for example, ages of consent differ across state lines. But the federal government, and many states outside the Northeast, have enacted exceptions refusing to recognize same-sex marriages and by implication, legal experts say, their civil unions. (For federal benefits, like taxes, civil unions and marriages are indeed treated equally: same-sex couples are denied benefits no matter their status.)
The few precedents available in New York involve marriages performed in Massachusetts, the only state where gay and lesbian couples can marry, and civil unions from Vermont or Connecticut.
“It’s clear in New York that marriages validly performed in another state should be respected,” said David Buckel of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the original New Jersey case that spawned the Supreme Court decision nine weeks ago.
Mr. Buckel said that many New York employers, insurers and local governments did recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts, and the state comptroller has said the state would recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of pension benefits. “But,” he said, “it’s less clear that this will be the case with civil unions.”
“We’re going to fight for New Jersey couples,” he said. “We’re going to have to fight a lot more than we would have if they were married and had that security.”
William C. Duncan, the director of the Marriage Law Foundation, a Utah-based legal organization that opposes gay marriage, said that “there are bound to be significant interstate questions because civil unions is a novel idea compared to what states have been doing for decades.”
With same-sex marriages, “couples could go to another state and say they want their marriage recognized,” Mr. Duncan said. “At least there, the default rules apply. With civil unions it’s really all up in the air.”
Many New York residents may seek civil unions in New Jersey as well, since the law contains no residency requirement.
“If you’re a gay person living on Christopher Street, you can take a three-minute PATH ride to Jersey City” for a civil union license and ceremony, pointed out Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the group that has led the campaign for same-sex marriage. “Then you go home. Well, test it on your tax forms on April 15 and see what happens.”
Alan Van Capelle, the director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay-rights group in Manhattan, noted that New Yorkers are already able to obtain civil unions in Connecticut and Vermont, a relatively short drive away. “So now, it’s which do you like better? Do you like Foxwoods or do you like Atlantic City?” Mr. Capelle said.
In Pennsylvania, there is even less likelihood that civil union couples would be treated like married couples, since that state bars recognition of same-sex marriages (it has no guidelines for civil unions).
Within New Jersey, the new law demands that civil union couples be treated like married couples by private employers, hospitals, social service organizations and companies like insurers that do business in the state. The legislation spells out the benefits to be extended, like family leave and full adoption rights, the right to change a surname without a court petition, workers compensation benefits and protections under the laws governing health benefits and pensions.
Still, Mr. Goldstein said, it might be harder to enforce these rights without the word “marriage” attached.
“You get on paper all 700-plus rights that marriage provides,” he said. “You get those on paper. We’re just so scared that these rights won’t come to life in the real world.”
Many advocates of same-sex marriage say they worry that the benefits afforded by civil unions — like the more modest package of benefits already available through New Jersey’s 2004 domestic partnership law — would not be easily understood.
Mr. Buckel recalled a plea from a woman in South Jersey whose partner was hospitalized and unconscious. Hospital staff members, she reported, had removed her partner’s commitment ring and refused to give it to her, and then insisted that they could deal only with blood relatives.
New Jersey’s domestic partnership law allowed the woman to make medical decisions for her partner, but only after the Lambda Legal staff called the hospital’s lawyer, Mr. Buckel said, was she able to do so.
By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: December 14, 2006
TRENTON, Dec. 13 — With New Jersey’s Legislature set to vote Thursday to establish civil unions rather than same-sex marriages, it remains unclear whether this approach can actually fulfill the mandate from the state’s Supreme Court to guarantee the same rights and benefits for gay and straight couples.
The New Jersey State Bar Association is one of several organizations that have criticized the proposed civil union law, saying in a statement that it “will create a separate, unequal and unnecessarily complex legal scheme” that does not satisfy the Supreme Court’s directive.
Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage debate are uneasy about the legislation, which was introduced just nine days ago and has seen little scrutiny, with only two committee hearings before the scheduled floor debate. And among gay couples who plan to obtain civil unions, as well as lawyers who work on civil rights issues, questions about a new, parallel institution are piling up.
The most likely problems, they say, will arise beyond the state’s borders — beyond the reach of its Supreme Court and the Legislature. The biggest among many unknowns is how New York will treat the unions, no small question in New Jersey, which has 335,000 residents who work in New York. (An additional 117,000 work in Pennsylvania.)
The answer seemed clear when the New York Attorney General’s Office said in an advisory opinion in 2004 that New York should recognize a same-sex marriage “or its legal equivalent” from another state.
But last fall, in a case involving a gay couple from New York who had entered a civil union in Vermont, a New York appellate court refused to recognize the surviving partner as a spouse for the purpose of filing a wrongful death suit. The court pointed out that the Vermont Legislature created a separate institution rather than allow gays and lesbians to marry, implying the couples can be treated differently.
Spokesmen for the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who will become governor in January, said they could not expand on the 2004 advisory opinion or comment on the New Jersey law until it is in place.
Most states recognize marriages legally performed in another state even if they would otherwise be invalid — for example, ages of consent differ across state lines. But the federal government, and many states outside the Northeast, have enacted exceptions refusing to recognize same-sex marriages and by implication, legal experts say, their civil unions. (For federal benefits, like taxes, civil unions and marriages are indeed treated equally: same-sex couples are denied benefits no matter their status.)
The few precedents available in New York involve marriages performed in Massachusetts, the only state where gay and lesbian couples can marry, and civil unions from Vermont or Connecticut.
“It’s clear in New York that marriages validly performed in another state should be respected,” said David Buckel of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the original New Jersey case that spawned the Supreme Court decision nine weeks ago.
Mr. Buckel said that many New York employers, insurers and local governments did recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts, and the state comptroller has said the state would recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of pension benefits. “But,” he said, “it’s less clear that this will be the case with civil unions.”
“We’re going to fight for New Jersey couples,” he said. “We’re going to have to fight a lot more than we would have if they were married and had that security.”
William C. Duncan, the director of the Marriage Law Foundation, a Utah-based legal organization that opposes gay marriage, said that “there are bound to be significant interstate questions because civil unions is a novel idea compared to what states have been doing for decades.”
With same-sex marriages, “couples could go to another state and say they want their marriage recognized,” Mr. Duncan said. “At least there, the default rules apply. With civil unions it’s really all up in the air.”
Many New York residents may seek civil unions in New Jersey as well, since the law contains no residency requirement.
“If you’re a gay person living on Christopher Street, you can take a three-minute PATH ride to Jersey City” for a civil union license and ceremony, pointed out Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the group that has led the campaign for same-sex marriage. “Then you go home. Well, test it on your tax forms on April 15 and see what happens.”
Alan Van Capelle, the director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay-rights group in Manhattan, noted that New Yorkers are already able to obtain civil unions in Connecticut and Vermont, a relatively short drive away. “So now, it’s which do you like better? Do you like Foxwoods or do you like Atlantic City?” Mr. Capelle said.
In Pennsylvania, there is even less likelihood that civil union couples would be treated like married couples, since that state bars recognition of same-sex marriages (it has no guidelines for civil unions).
Within New Jersey, the new law demands that civil union couples be treated like married couples by private employers, hospitals, social service organizations and companies like insurers that do business in the state. The legislation spells out the benefits to be extended, like family leave and full adoption rights, the right to change a surname without a court petition, workers compensation benefits and protections under the laws governing health benefits and pensions.
Still, Mr. Goldstein said, it might be harder to enforce these rights without the word “marriage” attached.
“You get on paper all 700-plus rights that marriage provides,” he said. “You get those on paper. We’re just so scared that these rights won’t come to life in the real world.”
Many advocates of same-sex marriage say they worry that the benefits afforded by civil unions — like the more modest package of benefits already available through New Jersey’s 2004 domestic partnership law — would not be easily understood.
Mr. Buckel recalled a plea from a woman in South Jersey whose partner was hospitalized and unconscious. Hospital staff members, she reported, had removed her partner’s commitment ring and refused to give it to her, and then insisted that they could deal only with blood relatives.
New Jersey’s domestic partnership law allowed the woman to make medical decisions for her partner, but only after the Lambda Legal staff called the hospital’s lawyer, Mr. Buckel said, was she able to do so.
Mass legislators sued.
Backers of anti-gay marriage amendment file federal lawsuit
By STEVE LeBLANC Associated Press Writer
(AP) - BOSTON-Supporters of an anti-gay marriage measure filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday seeking up to $5 million in damages from Massachusetts lawmakers who blocked a final vote on the proposed constitutional amendment last month.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by the group VoteOnMarriage.org, claims the 109 state lawmakers violated the supporters' rights to free speech and right to petition the government.
The state House and Senate last month chose to end debate before discussing an amendment that would ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it. VoteOnMarriage.org is asking the court to interpret the recess as a vote in favor of the amendment. Many lawmakers said the vote was designed to kill the amendment.
The legislature is scheduled to take up the question again Jan. 2, the last day of the session. Supporters of the question fear lawmakers will again avoid taking a vote, killing the proposed amendment.
Glen Lavy, a lawyer representing the group, says the lawsuit is needed to force lawmakers to follow the constitution. It seeks $500,000 (€380,000) from the lawmakers for the cost of the group's legal battles and another $5 million (€3.8 million) in punitive damages. The damages would be split 109 ways and lawmakers would be held personally liable, he said.
"We would like to put an end to the Massachusetts Legislature thumbing its nose at citizen initiatives," Lavy said. "This lawsuit is about holding those legislators responsible for their illegal conduct."
Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, calls the lawsuit "laughable" and said it was at the "outer limits of plausibility."
It is the second lawsuit designed to force lawmakers to take a vote on the question.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and other opponents of gay marriage filed a suit with the state Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to force lawmakers to take a vote on the proposed amendment or, if they fail to act, to put the question on the 2008 ballot anyway. The case is pending.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the state must allow gay marriage. Massachusetts is the only state to do so, although Connecticut and Vermont allow same-sex civil unions.2006-12-13T21:07:00Z
By STEVE LeBLANC Associated Press Writer
(AP) - BOSTON-Supporters of an anti-gay marriage measure filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday seeking up to $5 million in damages from Massachusetts lawmakers who blocked a final vote on the proposed constitutional amendment last month.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by the group VoteOnMarriage.org, claims the 109 state lawmakers violated the supporters' rights to free speech and right to petition the government.
The state House and Senate last month chose to end debate before discussing an amendment that would ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it. VoteOnMarriage.org is asking the court to interpret the recess as a vote in favor of the amendment. Many lawmakers said the vote was designed to kill the amendment.
The legislature is scheduled to take up the question again Jan. 2, the last day of the session. Supporters of the question fear lawmakers will again avoid taking a vote, killing the proposed amendment.
Glen Lavy, a lawyer representing the group, says the lawsuit is needed to force lawmakers to follow the constitution. It seeks $500,000 (€380,000) from the lawmakers for the cost of the group's legal battles and another $5 million (€3.8 million) in punitive damages. The damages would be split 109 ways and lawmakers would be held personally liable, he said.
"We would like to put an end to the Massachusetts Legislature thumbing its nose at citizen initiatives," Lavy said. "This lawsuit is about holding those legislators responsible for their illegal conduct."
Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, calls the lawsuit "laughable" and said it was at the "outer limits of plausibility."
It is the second lawsuit designed to force lawmakers to take a vote on the question.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and other opponents of gay marriage filed a suit with the state Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to force lawmakers to take a vote on the proposed amendment or, if they fail to act, to put the question on the 2008 ballot anyway. The case is pending.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the state must allow gay marriage. Massachusetts is the only state to do so, although Connecticut and Vermont allow same-sex civil unions.2006-12-13T21:07:00Z
December 07, 2006
NJ bill will not call gay unions marriage
New Jersey bill will not call gay unions marriage
Thu Dec 7, 2006 3:38 PM ET
By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A panel of New Jersey lawmakers approved a bill on Thursday that would create civil unions giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couple, shunning a push to call those partnerships "marriage."
The State Assembly's judiciary committee voted 4-2 for the bill, which would provide those unions with the legal rights of married couples.
The measure follows an October 25 state Supreme Court ruling that ordered the legislature to give gay couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, but left it to lawmakers to decide whether to call it "marriage."
Massachusetts became the first and only state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Several other states have civil union or domestic partnership laws.
The New Jersey panel heard sometimes emotional testimony from campaigners on both sides in a four hourlong hearing.
Steve McIntyre said he has been with his partner for 20 years, and they want to be legally married.
"He's not my roommate, he's not my partner, he's my husband," McIntyre told the panel.
The bill was expected to be approved in both houses of the legislature by the end of the year,
A poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, showed on Thursday that 60 percent of New Jersey voters supported a law allowing civil unions, but half were opposed to gay marriage.
Karen Nicholson-McFadden, who is among seven same-sex couples who brought the Supreme Court case against the state, urged lawmakers to vote against the civil unions bill because she said it would continue discrimination against gay and lesbian couples by preventing them from marrying.
"The government thinks it's OK to treat us differently because we are gay," she said. "I will never be allowed to marry the only person I would ever want to marry if you pass this bill."
Among witnesses opposing gay marriage, the Rev. Peter West presented a letter from seven Catholic bishops urging lawmakers to affirm that marriage is "between one man and one woman."
(Additional reporting by Jonathan Oatis in New York)
Thu Dec 7, 2006 3:38 PM ET
By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A panel of New Jersey lawmakers approved a bill on Thursday that would create civil unions giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couple, shunning a push to call those partnerships "marriage."
The State Assembly's judiciary committee voted 4-2 for the bill, which would provide those unions with the legal rights of married couples.
The measure follows an October 25 state Supreme Court ruling that ordered the legislature to give gay couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, but left it to lawmakers to decide whether to call it "marriage."
Massachusetts became the first and only state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Several other states have civil union or domestic partnership laws.
The New Jersey panel heard sometimes emotional testimony from campaigners on both sides in a four hourlong hearing.
Steve McIntyre said he has been with his partner for 20 years, and they want to be legally married.
"He's not my roommate, he's not my partner, he's my husband," McIntyre told the panel.
The bill was expected to be approved in both houses of the legislature by the end of the year,
A poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, showed on Thursday that 60 percent of New Jersey voters supported a law allowing civil unions, but half were opposed to gay marriage.
Karen Nicholson-McFadden, who is among seven same-sex couples who brought the Supreme Court case against the state, urged lawmakers to vote against the civil unions bill because she said it would continue discrimination against gay and lesbian couples by preventing them from marrying.
"The government thinks it's OK to treat us differently because we are gay," she said. "I will never be allowed to marry the only person I would ever want to marry if you pass this bill."
Among witnesses opposing gay marriage, the Rev. Peter West presented a letter from seven Catholic bishops urging lawmakers to affirm that marriage is "between one man and one woman."
(Additional reporting by Jonathan Oatis in New York)
Canda won't reopen gay marriage debate
Canada won't reopen gay marriage debate
By ROB GILLIESASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
December 7, 2006
TORONTO -- Canada's Parliament voted Thursday not to reopen the gay marriage debate, letting stand a law passed last year that legalized marriage for same-sex couples.
During the last election campaign, Conservative leader Stephen Harper - now the prime minister - had promised to hold a vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should reconsider the issue.
Harper's government, which draws most of its support from the conservative west, was seeking to appease its base, even though Christian activists acknowledged this week the law would stand.
"We didn't expect it to carry, but it was defeated by a higher margin than we thought," said Charles McVety, head of the Defend Marriage movement.
Twelve Conservative members of Parliament, including several members of Harper's Cabinet, joined Liberals and other opposition parties to defeat the motion to reopen the debate, 175-123.
Harper said the vote would likely put the issue to rest. "I don't see reopening this question in the future," he said after the vote.
Gay marriage became legal in Canada last year under the previous Liberal government in response to a series of court rulings that gave gay people the right to marry. Thousands of gay Canadians, as well as foreign visitors, have gotten married.
Laurie Arron, national coordinator for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which led the effort to legalize gay marriage, said Thursday's vote reflects a growing consensus among Canadians that it is time to move on. Last year's vote to allow gay marriage was 158-133.
"It's clear that this issue is now settled. The vote today was quite overwhelming," Arron said.
Same-sex marriage is legal in four other countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and South Africa. In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions, California grants similar status through a domestic-partner registration law, and more than a dozen states give gay couples some legal rights.
By ROB GILLIESASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
December 7, 2006
TORONTO -- Canada's Parliament voted Thursday not to reopen the gay marriage debate, letting stand a law passed last year that legalized marriage for same-sex couples.
During the last election campaign, Conservative leader Stephen Harper - now the prime minister - had promised to hold a vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should reconsider the issue.
Harper's government, which draws most of its support from the conservative west, was seeking to appease its base, even though Christian activists acknowledged this week the law would stand.
"We didn't expect it to carry, but it was defeated by a higher margin than we thought," said Charles McVety, head of the Defend Marriage movement.
Twelve Conservative members of Parliament, including several members of Harper's Cabinet, joined Liberals and other opposition parties to defeat the motion to reopen the debate, 175-123.
Harper said the vote would likely put the issue to rest. "I don't see reopening this question in the future," he said after the vote.
Gay marriage became legal in Canada last year under the previous Liberal government in response to a series of court rulings that gave gay people the right to marry. Thousands of gay Canadians, as well as foreign visitors, have gotten married.
Laurie Arron, national coordinator for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which led the effort to legalize gay marriage, said Thursday's vote reflects a growing consensus among Canadians that it is time to move on. Last year's vote to allow gay marriage was 158-133.
"It's clear that this issue is now settled. The vote today was quite overwhelming," Arron said.
Same-sex marriage is legal in four other countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and South Africa. In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions, California grants similar status through a domestic-partner registration law, and more than a dozen states give gay couples some legal rights.
December 06, 2006
Conservative Jews open way for gays
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Conflicting Conservative opinions expected to open the way for gays
By Ben HarrisDecember 6, 2006
NEW YORK, Dec. 6 (JTA) — The Conservative movement’s highest legal body moved to allow commitment ceremonies for gays and the ordination of gay rabbis.
With the endorsement Wednesday of three conflicting teshuvot, or halachic responsa, by the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards — two upholding the longstanding ban on homosexuality and one permitting ordination of gay rabbis and commitment ceremonies — it’s likely that other rabbis will now begin performing such ceremonies, comfortable in the knowledge that they enjoy halachic sanction from the movement’s highest legal body.
With advocates on both sides of the issue warning that it could irreparably fracture the movement, Rabbi Menachem Creditor, a leading advocate of gay ordination, told a gathering at the Jewish Theological Seminary on Tuesday to remember that Conservative Judaism is a large enough tent to accommodate differing opinions.
“I have congregants who call me rabbi who disagree very strongly with me,” Creditor said. “They still call me rabbi and I still call them friend. There’s something really important about that.”
Momentum has been building for years for a more permissive Conservative attitude toward homosexuality. Despite the 1992 decision of the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which upheld the ban on gay rabbis and commitment ceremonies, a number of Conservative rabbis do perform such ceremonies.
That number is expected to grow.
“I think there will be a significant change,” said Ayelet Cohen, a JTS graduate and rabbi of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, a Manhattan synagogue for gays and lesbians.
An outspoken proponent of changing the traditional prohibition on homosexuality, Cohen performed commitment ceremonies for gay couples prior to this week’s decision by the committee. She said opponents of change no longer will be able to use the law committee’s 1992 statement on homosexuality as an excuse to continue excluding gays from the movement.
“According to the current position of the movement, gay men and women are lesser human beings than heterosexuals.,” Cohen said. “Gay people can be kept out of every level of lay leadership in our movement. Until now, rabbis have been able to say, ‘There’s nothing I can do. My hands are tied.’ ”
But by deciding that continuing the ban on homosexuality also is a legitimate position, the committee has ensured that local rabbis who oppose a change in policy will have a halachic authority to cite in making their case.
There is considerably less ambiguity at the movement’s seminaries, where much of the agitation to change policy has originated.
At the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, leaders long have made clear their intention to ordain gay rabbis if the law committee issued a permissive ruling.
In New York, the Jewish Theological Seminary has been less forthcoming. Though he has said publicly that he supports gay ordination, incoming Chancellor Arnold Eisen has outlined a process of consultation with students and faculty that he intends to follow in deciding whether to ordain gays.
KeshetJTS, a student advocacy group, says a survey shows that eight out of 10 members of the JTS community would support such a move.
“I think that congregants are ahead of their rabbis on many issues, and this is one of them,” said Rabbi Steve Greenberg, an openly gay Orthodox rabbi and senior teaching fellow at CLAL-the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. “I can tell you that there are people who have wanted to go to the seminary to become a rabbi and have chosen to go elsewhere, and will be thrilled that that option will now be open to them.”
One such person is Aaron Weininger, an openly gay senior at Washington University in St. Louis and a lifelong member of the Conservative movement. His decision on where to apply to rabbinical school hinged on the law committee’s decision.
“I would like to be able to apply to a Conservative seminary, and for both ethical and personal reasons right now that’s not an option,” Weininger told JTA before the vote.
Weininger said he would apply to the University of Judaism, but would also consider JTS if that became an option.
Like other advocates of liberalization, Weininger said what’s at stake is not just the status of gays in Conservative Judaism but the movement’s entire approach to interpreting halacha.
He hopes the decision will lead to greater clarity in the way movement authorities negotiate the line between fidelity to tradition and the demands of contemporary life.
“Morality is at the very core of law, and that law really drives us toward our aspiration of holiness and justice,” Weininger said. “And so if we in turn interpret law to exclude people, we really violate the intent of the law.”
Given the multiple opinions allowed by the law committee, neither advocates nor opponents of change will feel compelled to adjust their positions.
Still, many observers are hopeful that the decision will open a vital discussion within a movement that once was America’s largest Jewish denomination.
Creditor said Eisen’s use of the committee debate as an opportunity for discussion is a step in the right direction.
“That’s a revolution,” Creditor said. “It might be quiet, but I think it’s going to change things on the ground because rabbis can’t ignore the inclusion of whichever teshuvot will be accepted. We can’t ignore it. There’s no hiding it. It’s transparent.”
Conflicting Conservative opinions expected to open the way for gays
By Ben HarrisDecember 6, 2006
NEW YORK, Dec. 6 (JTA) — The Conservative movement’s highest legal body moved to allow commitment ceremonies for gays and the ordination of gay rabbis.
With the endorsement Wednesday of three conflicting teshuvot, or halachic responsa, by the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards — two upholding the longstanding ban on homosexuality and one permitting ordination of gay rabbis and commitment ceremonies — it’s likely that other rabbis will now begin performing such ceremonies, comfortable in the knowledge that they enjoy halachic sanction from the movement’s highest legal body.
With advocates on both sides of the issue warning that it could irreparably fracture the movement, Rabbi Menachem Creditor, a leading advocate of gay ordination, told a gathering at the Jewish Theological Seminary on Tuesday to remember that Conservative Judaism is a large enough tent to accommodate differing opinions.
“I have congregants who call me rabbi who disagree very strongly with me,” Creditor said. “They still call me rabbi and I still call them friend. There’s something really important about that.”
Momentum has been building for years for a more permissive Conservative attitude toward homosexuality. Despite the 1992 decision of the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which upheld the ban on gay rabbis and commitment ceremonies, a number of Conservative rabbis do perform such ceremonies.
That number is expected to grow.
“I think there will be a significant change,” said Ayelet Cohen, a JTS graduate and rabbi of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, a Manhattan synagogue for gays and lesbians.
An outspoken proponent of changing the traditional prohibition on homosexuality, Cohen performed commitment ceremonies for gay couples prior to this week’s decision by the committee. She said opponents of change no longer will be able to use the law committee’s 1992 statement on homosexuality as an excuse to continue excluding gays from the movement.
“According to the current position of the movement, gay men and women are lesser human beings than heterosexuals.,” Cohen said. “Gay people can be kept out of every level of lay leadership in our movement. Until now, rabbis have been able to say, ‘There’s nothing I can do. My hands are tied.’ ”
But by deciding that continuing the ban on homosexuality also is a legitimate position, the committee has ensured that local rabbis who oppose a change in policy will have a halachic authority to cite in making their case.
There is considerably less ambiguity at the movement’s seminaries, where much of the agitation to change policy has originated.
At the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, leaders long have made clear their intention to ordain gay rabbis if the law committee issued a permissive ruling.
In New York, the Jewish Theological Seminary has been less forthcoming. Though he has said publicly that he supports gay ordination, incoming Chancellor Arnold Eisen has outlined a process of consultation with students and faculty that he intends to follow in deciding whether to ordain gays.
KeshetJTS, a student advocacy group, says a survey shows that eight out of 10 members of the JTS community would support such a move.
“I think that congregants are ahead of their rabbis on many issues, and this is one of them,” said Rabbi Steve Greenberg, an openly gay Orthodox rabbi and senior teaching fellow at CLAL-the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. “I can tell you that there are people who have wanted to go to the seminary to become a rabbi and have chosen to go elsewhere, and will be thrilled that that option will now be open to them.”
One such person is Aaron Weininger, an openly gay senior at Washington University in St. Louis and a lifelong member of the Conservative movement. His decision on where to apply to rabbinical school hinged on the law committee’s decision.
“I would like to be able to apply to a Conservative seminary, and for both ethical and personal reasons right now that’s not an option,” Weininger told JTA before the vote.
Weininger said he would apply to the University of Judaism, but would also consider JTS if that became an option.
Like other advocates of liberalization, Weininger said what’s at stake is not just the status of gays in Conservative Judaism but the movement’s entire approach to interpreting halacha.
He hopes the decision will lead to greater clarity in the way movement authorities negotiate the line between fidelity to tradition and the demands of contemporary life.
“Morality is at the very core of law, and that law really drives us toward our aspiration of holiness and justice,” Weininger said. “And so if we in turn interpret law to exclude people, we really violate the intent of the law.”
Given the multiple opinions allowed by the law committee, neither advocates nor opponents of change will feel compelled to adjust their positions.
Still, many observers are hopeful that the decision will open a vital discussion within a movement that once was America’s largest Jewish denomination.
Creditor said Eisen’s use of the committee debate as an opportunity for discussion is a step in the right direction.
“That’s a revolution,” Creditor said. “It might be quiet, but I think it’s going to change things on the ground because rabbis can’t ignore the inclusion of whichever teshuvot will be accepted. We can’t ignore it. There’s no hiding it. It’s transparent.”
December 05, 2006
NJ Civil Unions Legislators up on Marriage
N.J. Civil Unions Hung Up on 'Marriage'
The Associated Press
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
December 05, 2006
In inheritance, health insurance, parental rights and virtually everything else but name, gay couples in New Jersey would be treated the same as married couples under a bill introduced this week.
The bill to authorize civil unions refers to couples not as 'spouses' but as 'parties,' language the head of the state's main gay rights group considers 'putrid.'
The legislation filed late Monday and made available to the public Tuesday is the response of key Democratic lawmakers to the state Supreme Court's ruling in October that New Jersey must extend all privileges of marriage to gay couples within 180 days.
The court, in a 4-3 ruling, did not mandate that the unions be called 'marriages,' and the political debate since then has focused squarely on that word.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, an advocacy group that wants full marriage for gay couples, said he was surprised by the tone of the bill when he saw it Tuesday.
'Even by the standards of a civil unions bill, it's still putrid,' he said.
'I've been with my partner more than 14 years. He's well beyond 'a party to a civil union.''
The bill states that gay couples who register 'shall receive the same benefits and protections and be subject to the same responsibilities as spouses in a marriage.' It does not, however, contain a provision like a similar 2000 Vermont law, which specifically said civil unions include 'any definition or use of the terms 'spouse,' 'family,' 'immediate family,' 'dependent,' 'next of kin.''
Democratic state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a sponsor of the New Jersey bill, said she would have called it 'spousal unions' instead of 'civil unions' if she thought her colleagues would support it.
Three statewide polls taken by independent groups since the Supreme Court decision indicate New Jersey voters prefer civil unions to marriage _ even if the difference comes down to a word.
Linda Greenstein, chairwoman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, said that makes it risky for backers of the marriage bill to push too hard for a vote on it. 'They don't want to have it put up only to have it voted down,' she said.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine said Tuesday that he supports the civil unions legislation, though he would also sign a bill allowing gay couples to marry. But, he said, society isn't ready for that.
A handful of states recognize same-sex couplings, though only Massachusetts allows marriage.
Besides the bill introduced this week, New Jersey lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow gay couples to marry and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Social conservatives also have promised to introduce a bill granting rights similar to marriage to other people who live together.
Most of the state's most powerful politicians, though, are backing civil unions.
The bill would take effect 30 days after being signed into law, and Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, a Democrat, has said he would like the civil unions bill to be passed before the end of the year.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The Associated Press
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
December 05, 2006
In inheritance, health insurance, parental rights and virtually everything else but name, gay couples in New Jersey would be treated the same as married couples under a bill introduced this week.
The bill to authorize civil unions refers to couples not as 'spouses' but as 'parties,' language the head of the state's main gay rights group considers 'putrid.'
The legislation filed late Monday and made available to the public Tuesday is the response of key Democratic lawmakers to the state Supreme Court's ruling in October that New Jersey must extend all privileges of marriage to gay couples within 180 days.
The court, in a 4-3 ruling, did not mandate that the unions be called 'marriages,' and the political debate since then has focused squarely on that word.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, an advocacy group that wants full marriage for gay couples, said he was surprised by the tone of the bill when he saw it Tuesday.
'Even by the standards of a civil unions bill, it's still putrid,' he said.
'I've been with my partner more than 14 years. He's well beyond 'a party to a civil union.''
The bill states that gay couples who register 'shall receive the same benefits and protections and be subject to the same responsibilities as spouses in a marriage.' It does not, however, contain a provision like a similar 2000 Vermont law, which specifically said civil unions include 'any definition or use of the terms 'spouse,' 'family,' 'immediate family,' 'dependent,' 'next of kin.''
Democratic state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a sponsor of the New Jersey bill, said she would have called it 'spousal unions' instead of 'civil unions' if she thought her colleagues would support it.
Three statewide polls taken by independent groups since the Supreme Court decision indicate New Jersey voters prefer civil unions to marriage _ even if the difference comes down to a word.
Linda Greenstein, chairwoman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, said that makes it risky for backers of the marriage bill to push too hard for a vote on it. 'They don't want to have it put up only to have it voted down,' she said.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine said Tuesday that he supports the civil unions legislation, though he would also sign a bill allowing gay couples to marry. But, he said, society isn't ready for that.
A handful of states recognize same-sex couplings, though only Massachusetts allows marriage.
Besides the bill introduced this week, New Jersey lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow gay couples to marry and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Social conservatives also have promised to introduce a bill granting rights similar to marriage to other people who live together.
Most of the state's most powerful politicians, though, are backing civil unions.
The bill would take effect 30 days after being signed into law, and Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, a Democrat, has said he would like the civil unions bill to be passed before the end of the year.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Straights refuse to marry until Gays Can
The Sit-In at the Altar: No ‘I Do’ Till Gays Can Do It, Too
by KAYLEEN SCHAEFER
NY Times
Published: December 3, 2006
LAST July, Kelly White and her boyfriend became engaged. They had a cozy picnic of wine and cheese on a hill before he presented her with a watermelon-flavor Ring Pop and asked her to marry him. “I’d rather not say if he got down on one knee or not,” she said. “It’s embarrassing.”
But they won’t end up at the altar anytime soon: they said they would not marry until gay and lesbian couples are also allowed to.
“I usually explain that I wouldn’t go to a lunch counter that wouldn’t allow people of color to eat there, so why would I support an institution that won’t allow everyone to take part,” said Ms. White, 24, a law student at the University of California, Davis. “Sometimes people don’t buy that analogy.”
Whether it makes sense or not, some heterosexual couples, mostly in their in 20s and 30s, are protesting the inability of gay and lesbian couples to marry by putting off their own marriage. Unless wedded bliss is available to everyone, in every state, they say, they want no part of it.
These couples have gone mostly unnoticed (except by parents waiting to send out wedding announcements). Then Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie took up the cause. In an Esquire article in October called “(My List) 15 Things I Think Everyone Should Know,” Mr. Pitt writes, “Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able.”
They are not the first celebrity couple to have the idea. In 2005 on the television show “Extra,” Charlize Theron said of her relationship with the actor Stuart Townsend, “We said we would get married the day that gays and lesbians can get married, when that right is given to them.”
A number of the heterosexual holdouts live in California, where in February 2004, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some couples cite that act as the catalyst for their protest.
Some of those delaying marriage are cynical types who seem happy to stick it out. They think the idea of marriage is antiquated and want to be tied to a spouse as much they might want to move in with the in-laws after the honeymoon.
“I didn’t have the wedding fantasies some little girls have,” said Sarah Augusto, 25, a sociology graduate student in Davis, Calif., who has been committed to Jon Bell, 26, a museum exhibit designer, since college graduation three years ago.
But some honestly wish they would walk the aisle, Mr. Bell for one. “Sarah has changed the way I thought about things a ton,” he said. “I was really excited about getting married. Going into high school that was the goal, to meet a nice girl and get married to her.”
Gay and lesbian organizations working to have same-sex marriage legalized don’t officially sanction what these couples are doing. They said the gesture is sweet, but don’t want anyone to put off marriage.
“The people we represent want to get married,” said Susan Sommer, the senior counsel at Lambda Legal. “It’s not like we encourage different-sex couples who want to get married not to. We recognize the legal rights of getting married and the cultural benefits.”
Molly McKay, a founder of Marriage Equality U.S.A. in Oakland, said its goal is to increase the number of people who have the protections that come with marriage. “We love weddings,” Ms. McKay said.
Those delaying marriage also meet resistance from friends and relatives who say they are using politics to avoid real commitment. Some of Mr. Bell’s family and friends say he and Ms. Augusto are not serious about their relationship because they haven’t exchanged marriage vows.
“I don’t feel like I can meet anyone more wonderful than her,” Mr. Bell said. “But I can’t clearly communicate that to everyone around me until we’re married. I think that my family thinks that once we love and care for each other enough, that our politics will break down.”
Mary Lunetta’s grandmother, 77, doesn’t understand why her granddaughter is putting off marriage, either. Ms. Lunetta, 24, a community studies major at the University of California, Santa Cruz, explained to her grandmother that she is waiting to make it official with Max Hartman, her boyfriend of five years, because her aunt, who is a lesbian, can’t marry.
Ms. Lunetta said she did not expect her grandmother to get it or agree. “And she didn’t.” Her grandmother, though, did tell her about Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie. “They’re copying us,” Ms. Lunetta said.
According to the Government Accountability Office, a marriage license comes with 1,138 federal rights, including the ability to claim a dead spouse’s Social Security benefits and to make medical decisions for a spouse in an emergency. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. In 44 states it is forbidden by statute, constitution or both. Still, most unmarried heterosexual couples acknowledge that it would be easy for them, unlike a same-sex couple, to pass for husband and wife if they need to.
“As we continue together, people will just assume we’re married,” Mr. Hartman said. “If I’m sick in the hospital, and she says she’s my wife, they’re not going to ask for documentation.”
Most of these couples don’t have children, but said they wouldn’t cave in when they did.
The stance tends to be entirely personal. Holding a picket sign in front of the local courthouse isn’t on the agenda.
But some couples see no point in resisting marriage unless they’re going to publicize it. They do so mostly by correcting people who assume they are legally married.
Sam and Fawn Livingston-Gray of Portland, Ore., have the same last name and wear matching white-gold rings engraved with Celtic designs. Still, when someone refers to Sam, 31, a computer programmer, and Fawn, 33, an administrative assistant, as husband and wife, they point out the mistake, even if it’s the guy at the car-rental counter.
“I go out of my way to say we’re not,” Ms. Livingston-Gray said. “It’s a really important dialogue with people I wouldn’t get to talk to otherwise.”
Referring to each other as “partner” usually helps avoid the misperception, but that can be tricky, too. When Ms. Augusto, the sociology graduate student, speaks of her partner, people ask if she’s a lesbian. “I say, ‘My partner is male,’ ” she said. “ ‘We’re not getting married because it’s not a universal right, and I feel that the word boyfriend trivializes our relationship.’ It’s really shocking to the people I tell that to. Probably as shocking as if I were a lesbian.”
Ms. McKay of Marriage Equality U.S.A. said heterosexuals can be instrumental in the push for gay marriage. “It’s a very powerful decision to stand up against discrimination in a system where you benefit,” she said. “There’s no more powerful way of saying, ‘I object.’ ”
Not everyone appreciates the sacrifice. There are gay people who oppose marriage and the conventional family values supposed to go with it. But those delaying marriage insist they are not trying to force marriage on anyone.
“Maybe they think there are other issues we should be working on,” Ms. Livingston-Gray said. “But gay marriage has been a wedge issue for me. This right is really important and has been used to wedge people apart.”
Even in Massachusetts, at least one couple holds out. Andrea Ayvazian, 55, a United Church of Christ minister, and Michael Klare, 64, a professor, who have been together since 1985, are still choosing “not yet” as same-sex couples all around them are saying “I do.” (Their 18-year-old son teases them for being so stubborn.) “We had long ago decided that we’re not just going to break ranks over one state,” Mr. Klare said.
As for Ms. White, she ate the candy ring her boyfriend gave her up on the hill in Santa Cruz in July. After all, she said, “It’s a very long engagement period.”
by KAYLEEN SCHAEFER
NY Times
Published: December 3, 2006
LAST July, Kelly White and her boyfriend became engaged. They had a cozy picnic of wine and cheese on a hill before he presented her with a watermelon-flavor Ring Pop and asked her to marry him. “I’d rather not say if he got down on one knee or not,” she said. “It’s embarrassing.”
But they won’t end up at the altar anytime soon: they said they would not marry until gay and lesbian couples are also allowed to.
“I usually explain that I wouldn’t go to a lunch counter that wouldn’t allow people of color to eat there, so why would I support an institution that won’t allow everyone to take part,” said Ms. White, 24, a law student at the University of California, Davis. “Sometimes people don’t buy that analogy.”
Whether it makes sense or not, some heterosexual couples, mostly in their in 20s and 30s, are protesting the inability of gay and lesbian couples to marry by putting off their own marriage. Unless wedded bliss is available to everyone, in every state, they say, they want no part of it.
These couples have gone mostly unnoticed (except by parents waiting to send out wedding announcements). Then Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie took up the cause. In an Esquire article in October called “(My List) 15 Things I Think Everyone Should Know,” Mr. Pitt writes, “Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able.”
They are not the first celebrity couple to have the idea. In 2005 on the television show “Extra,” Charlize Theron said of her relationship with the actor Stuart Townsend, “We said we would get married the day that gays and lesbians can get married, when that right is given to them.”
A number of the heterosexual holdouts live in California, where in February 2004, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some couples cite that act as the catalyst for their protest.
Some of those delaying marriage are cynical types who seem happy to stick it out. They think the idea of marriage is antiquated and want to be tied to a spouse as much they might want to move in with the in-laws after the honeymoon.
“I didn’t have the wedding fantasies some little girls have,” said Sarah Augusto, 25, a sociology graduate student in Davis, Calif., who has been committed to Jon Bell, 26, a museum exhibit designer, since college graduation three years ago.
But some honestly wish they would walk the aisle, Mr. Bell for one. “Sarah has changed the way I thought about things a ton,” he said. “I was really excited about getting married. Going into high school that was the goal, to meet a nice girl and get married to her.”
Gay and lesbian organizations working to have same-sex marriage legalized don’t officially sanction what these couples are doing. They said the gesture is sweet, but don’t want anyone to put off marriage.
“The people we represent want to get married,” said Susan Sommer, the senior counsel at Lambda Legal. “It’s not like we encourage different-sex couples who want to get married not to. We recognize the legal rights of getting married and the cultural benefits.”
Molly McKay, a founder of Marriage Equality U.S.A. in Oakland, said its goal is to increase the number of people who have the protections that come with marriage. “We love weddings,” Ms. McKay said.
Those delaying marriage also meet resistance from friends and relatives who say they are using politics to avoid real commitment. Some of Mr. Bell’s family and friends say he and Ms. Augusto are not serious about their relationship because they haven’t exchanged marriage vows.
“I don’t feel like I can meet anyone more wonderful than her,” Mr. Bell said. “But I can’t clearly communicate that to everyone around me until we’re married. I think that my family thinks that once we love and care for each other enough, that our politics will break down.”
Mary Lunetta’s grandmother, 77, doesn’t understand why her granddaughter is putting off marriage, either. Ms. Lunetta, 24, a community studies major at the University of California, Santa Cruz, explained to her grandmother that she is waiting to make it official with Max Hartman, her boyfriend of five years, because her aunt, who is a lesbian, can’t marry.
Ms. Lunetta said she did not expect her grandmother to get it or agree. “And she didn’t.” Her grandmother, though, did tell her about Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie. “They’re copying us,” Ms. Lunetta said.
According to the Government Accountability Office, a marriage license comes with 1,138 federal rights, including the ability to claim a dead spouse’s Social Security benefits and to make medical decisions for a spouse in an emergency. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. In 44 states it is forbidden by statute, constitution or both. Still, most unmarried heterosexual couples acknowledge that it would be easy for them, unlike a same-sex couple, to pass for husband and wife if they need to.
“As we continue together, people will just assume we’re married,” Mr. Hartman said. “If I’m sick in the hospital, and she says she’s my wife, they’re not going to ask for documentation.”
Most of these couples don’t have children, but said they wouldn’t cave in when they did.
The stance tends to be entirely personal. Holding a picket sign in front of the local courthouse isn’t on the agenda.
But some couples see no point in resisting marriage unless they’re going to publicize it. They do so mostly by correcting people who assume they are legally married.
Sam and Fawn Livingston-Gray of Portland, Ore., have the same last name and wear matching white-gold rings engraved with Celtic designs. Still, when someone refers to Sam, 31, a computer programmer, and Fawn, 33, an administrative assistant, as husband and wife, they point out the mistake, even if it’s the guy at the car-rental counter.
“I go out of my way to say we’re not,” Ms. Livingston-Gray said. “It’s a really important dialogue with people I wouldn’t get to talk to otherwise.”
Referring to each other as “partner” usually helps avoid the misperception, but that can be tricky, too. When Ms. Augusto, the sociology graduate student, speaks of her partner, people ask if she’s a lesbian. “I say, ‘My partner is male,’ ” she said. “ ‘We’re not getting married because it’s not a universal right, and I feel that the word boyfriend trivializes our relationship.’ It’s really shocking to the people I tell that to. Probably as shocking as if I were a lesbian.”
Ms. McKay of Marriage Equality U.S.A. said heterosexuals can be instrumental in the push for gay marriage. “It’s a very powerful decision to stand up against discrimination in a system where you benefit,” she said. “There’s no more powerful way of saying, ‘I object.’ ”
Not everyone appreciates the sacrifice. There are gay people who oppose marriage and the conventional family values supposed to go with it. But those delaying marriage insist they are not trying to force marriage on anyone.
“Maybe they think there are other issues we should be working on,” Ms. Livingston-Gray said. “But gay marriage has been a wedge issue for me. This right is really important and has been used to wedge people apart.”
Even in Massachusetts, at least one couple holds out. Andrea Ayvazian, 55, a United Church of Christ minister, and Michael Klare, 64, a professor, who have been together since 1985, are still choosing “not yet” as same-sex couples all around them are saying “I do.” (Their 18-year-old son teases them for being so stubborn.) “We had long ago decided that we’re not just going to break ranks over one state,” Mr. Klare said.
As for Ms. White, she ate the candy ring her boyfriend gave her up on the hill in Santa Cruz in July. After all, she said, “It’s a very long engagement period.”
December 04, 2006
California legislators try for marriage again.
It's Round 2 for S.F. legislator in legal fight for gay marriage
San Jose Mercury News
December 02, 2006
We see great momentum with growing support
The debate over gay marriage is back after a year's hiatus, and this time supporters are hopeful the political climate has changed since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2005.
San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat who is openly gay, announced he will introduce a new marriage bill Monday, when legislators are sworn in for the upcoming session.
'We see great momentum with growing support,' said Leno, heading into his third and final term in the Assembly. 'We've come a long way' since California voters approved an initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000.
Leno called on the state's political leaders to 'rise up out of the shadows of inequality and be counted on this important civil rights issue by using their powers to put an end to discrimination against all people.'
Opponents, though, said it was illegal for the Legislature to repeal a vote of the people, though the 2000 measure, Proposition 22, more specifically dealt with not allowing California to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.
Since Schwarzenegger vetoed Leno's 2005 legislation, public support has grown for gay marriage. While Proposition 22 passed by a 20-point margin, six years later voters are now split evenly on the issue, according to opinion polls.
Also, courts have argued in favor of gay marriage: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state Legislature must provide same-sex couples equal access to the protections of marriage if it wanted to reserve marriage for a man and a woman. And a California Court of Appeals ruled the issue should be settled by the Legislature.
'There's been a huge shift, and we're hoping the governor realizes that public opinion has moved,' said Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, a statewide organization that advocates for gay and lesbian rights, 'and that his pledge to support full equality can only be addressed through marriage equality.'
Schwarzenegger vetoed Leno's legislation just prior to the special election, when he was currying support from his party's conservative base to approve his since-doomed reforms.
But this year, he signed seven bills supported by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups, including one that he'd vetoed in 2005. That bill added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of personal characteristics that can't be used in a negative way during a political campaign in voluntary pledges candidates can take.
Schwarzenegger has also been supportive of rights for domestic partners. But, he still believes voters have already decided the issue, said spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart.
'The governor's position,' she said, 'hasn't changed.'
Predicting the gay marriage issue will be the 'biggest legislative battle' next year, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said Democrats 'have declared war upon marriage between a man and a woman.'
'To continue to push for full-blown gay marriage licenses is unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic,' Thomasson said. 'The California Constitution specifically prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved initiatives. This bill should be vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger on the same grounds as he vetoed it last year -- because the people have already voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, just as God created it.'
In his 2005 veto message, Schwarzenegger said, 'I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.'
He also suggested that legislative action was not needed. 'If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary,' he wrote. 'If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.'
Leno disagrees, saying it's clear in the language of the state's family code, which Proposition 22 amended, that it applies only to out-of-state gay marriages.
'Now, they want to say they meant more than that,' Leno said. 'If the ban is unconstitutional, it's the Legislature's job to change the law, so this bill is necessary.'
A San Francisco Superior Court judge overruled the 2000 ban, but was overruled himself last year by a Court of Appeals judge, who said the issue shouldn't be decided by judicial fiat, but by the Legislature.
And the state Supreme Court is considering challenges to two parts of the state's family code. One defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and the other prohibits the state from recognizing out-of-state gay marriages. The high court isn't expected to decide until 2008.
Copyright © 2006 San Jose Mercury News, All Rights Reserved.
San Jose Mercury News
December 02, 2006
We see great momentum with growing support
The debate over gay marriage is back after a year's hiatus, and this time supporters are hopeful the political climate has changed since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2005.
San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat who is openly gay, announced he will introduce a new marriage bill Monday, when legislators are sworn in for the upcoming session.
'We see great momentum with growing support,' said Leno, heading into his third and final term in the Assembly. 'We've come a long way' since California voters approved an initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000.
Leno called on the state's political leaders to 'rise up out of the shadows of inequality and be counted on this important civil rights issue by using their powers to put an end to discrimination against all people.'
Opponents, though, said it was illegal for the Legislature to repeal a vote of the people, though the 2000 measure, Proposition 22, more specifically dealt with not allowing California to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.
Since Schwarzenegger vetoed Leno's 2005 legislation, public support has grown for gay marriage. While Proposition 22 passed by a 20-point margin, six years later voters are now split evenly on the issue, according to opinion polls.
Also, courts have argued in favor of gay marriage: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state Legislature must provide same-sex couples equal access to the protections of marriage if it wanted to reserve marriage for a man and a woman. And a California Court of Appeals ruled the issue should be settled by the Legislature.
'There's been a huge shift, and we're hoping the governor realizes that public opinion has moved,' said Geoff Kors, executive director for Equality California, a statewide organization that advocates for gay and lesbian rights, 'and that his pledge to support full equality can only be addressed through marriage equality.'
Schwarzenegger vetoed Leno's legislation just prior to the special election, when he was currying support from his party's conservative base to approve his since-doomed reforms.
But this year, he signed seven bills supported by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups, including one that he'd vetoed in 2005. That bill added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of personal characteristics that can't be used in a negative way during a political campaign in voluntary pledges candidates can take.
Schwarzenegger has also been supportive of rights for domestic partners. But, he still believes voters have already decided the issue, said spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart.
'The governor's position,' she said, 'hasn't changed.'
Predicting the gay marriage issue will be the 'biggest legislative battle' next year, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said Democrats 'have declared war upon marriage between a man and a woman.'
'To continue to push for full-blown gay marriage licenses is unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic,' Thomasson said. 'The California Constitution specifically prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved initiatives. This bill should be vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger on the same grounds as he vetoed it last year -- because the people have already voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, just as God created it.'
In his 2005 veto message, Schwarzenegger said, 'I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.'
He also suggested that legislative action was not needed. 'If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary,' he wrote. 'If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.'
Leno disagrees, saying it's clear in the language of the state's family code, which Proposition 22 amended, that it applies only to out-of-state gay marriages.
'Now, they want to say they meant more than that,' Leno said. 'If the ban is unconstitutional, it's the Legislature's job to change the law, so this bill is necessary.'
A San Francisco Superior Court judge overruled the 2000 ban, but was overruled himself last year by a Court of Appeals judge, who said the issue shouldn't be decided by judicial fiat, but by the Legislature.
And the state Supreme Court is considering challenges to two parts of the state's family code. One defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and the other prohibits the state from recognizing out-of-state gay marriages. The high court isn't expected to decide until 2008.
Copyright © 2006 San Jose Mercury News, All Rights Reserved.
Wprldwide trend of acceptence of same-sex marriage
Global warming to gay rights
Los Angeles Times
The worldwide trend of recognizing same-sexmarriage will likely continue.
By Paula L. Ettelbrick December 4, 2006
While state after state in the U.S. closes its doors to the prospect of same-sex marriage, lesbian and gay relationships have been gaining acceptance in the rest of the world.
Last month, South Africa joined the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain in opening civil marriage to same-sex couples, allowing them equal economic benefits, legal rights and social status as families. The law, passed by an astounding 230-41 margin in Parliament, was in response to an equally notable unanimous decision last year by the South African Constitutional Court. It ruled that the post- apartheid constitution ensures the dignity and equality of all people — and that includes lesbian and gay couples wishing to affirm their love and commitment through civil marriage.
Days afterward, when faced with five Israeli lesbian and gay couples who had married in Canada, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the government is required to officially register them as they would any other foreign marriage.
In the U.S., only Massachusetts has enacted full marriage for same-sex couples. Vermont, Connecticut and California have elected to use the less inflammatory terms civil union" or "domestic partnership," and New Jersey is still hashing out its terminology. The majority of the states have laws or constitutional amendments restricting "marriage" to one woman and one man.
Denmark in 1989 became the first nation to legally recognize same-sex relationships, and Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland swiftly followed that lead. Much of Europe, including France, Germany, Portugal and Hungary, now recognizes same-sex partnerships for a range of purposes, including inheritance, property and social-benefits rights. Countries in formerly communist blocs — the Czech Republic and Slovenia — recognize partnerships, and Croatia has extended some economic benefits to same-sex couples.
In September, the Senate in Uruguay voted 25 to 2 to pass a broad partnership law, positioning that country to be the first Latin American nation to extend legal rights when it is passed by the full legislature. New Zealand's and Australia's domestic partnership laws allow some of the most important benefits, such as immigration, inheritance and property rights. The government in Taiwan suggested a bill allowing same-sex marriage, though nothing has yet come of it. In Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Switzerland, some economic and legal rights have been extended by city and regional authorities. Just last month, Mexico City broke ground as the first government entity in that country to recognize same-sex civil unions.
These developments clearly mean that the number of same-sex couples whose relationships are legally valid is on the rise. By the end of the decade, it is possible that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples will have entered legal marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
When Britain's domestic partnership registration law went into effect last December, government ministers predicted that between 11,000 and 22,000 couples would benefit from the law by 2010. More than 6,500 same-sex couples registered just in the first year.
About 12,000 Canadian, 7,000 Dutch, 2,500 Belgian and 1,300 Spanish same-sex couples are already married.
These unions are already having ripple effects around the globe. In Ireland, a lesbian couple is asking the government to recognize their Canadian marriage. A court in the Caribbean country of Aruba ruled that the Dutch marriage of a lesbian couple must be registered in Aruba, which is part of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
How this trend will play out in countries that have not yet recognized same-sex relationships is still up in the air. Will the United States, for instance, accommodate a major corporation's desire to have one of its top executives from Canada move here with her legal spouse? Or a domestic-partnered diplomat from New Zealand? Or an American lucky enough to find the man of his dreams while working in South Africa? Will Sir Elton John's highly publicized civil union with longtime partner David Furnish be recognized by a hospital emergency room in Las Vegas or St. Louis or Salt Lake City should one of them fall ill on a concert tour?
To be sure, the backlash prompted by increased gay and lesbian visibility, whether through marriage or other demands for equality, has been fierce. South Africa's decision has drawn angry responses from religious and community leaders. Angry crowds in Moscow last May jeered a few dozen lesbian and gay marchers and demanded that Russia be cleansed of the evils of homosexuality. Likewise, an international gay pride event in Jerusalem had to be held in a stadium — instead of as a parade — because of threats and lobbying from ultra-Orthodox Jews and some Muslim and Christian groups.
Gay communities haven't even raised the issue of marriage in Latvia, Uganda and Honduras — where police violence and state discrimination are still standard practice. Yet the governments of those countries have gone out of their way to promote anti- gay hostility by outlawing same-sex marriage.
In Nigeria, a bill awaiting legislative action would impose criminal penalties for engaging in or performing a marriage ceremony for two men or two women.
In the United States, President Bush has consistently pushed the radical measure of amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, as has Australia's prime minister, John Howard.
Despite the backlash, one fact is self-evident. The trend toward recognizing the dignity and love of two people of the same sex will not disappear. As barriers to same-sex couples fall, courts, legislatures, religious denominations and businesses everywhere will need to respond.
As Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero proclaimed when his newly elected reform government approved same-sex marriage in 2005: "We are not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."
PAULA L. ETTELBRICK is the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
Los Angeles Times
The worldwide trend of recognizing same-sexmarriage will likely continue.
By Paula L. Ettelbrick December 4, 2006
While state after state in the U.S. closes its doors to the prospect of same-sex marriage, lesbian and gay relationships have been gaining acceptance in the rest of the world.
Last month, South Africa joined the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain in opening civil marriage to same-sex couples, allowing them equal economic benefits, legal rights and social status as families. The law, passed by an astounding 230-41 margin in Parliament, was in response to an equally notable unanimous decision last year by the South African Constitutional Court. It ruled that the post- apartheid constitution ensures the dignity and equality of all people — and that includes lesbian and gay couples wishing to affirm their love and commitment through civil marriage.
Days afterward, when faced with five Israeli lesbian and gay couples who had married in Canada, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the government is required to officially register them as they would any other foreign marriage.
In the U.S., only Massachusetts has enacted full marriage for same-sex couples. Vermont, Connecticut and California have elected to use the less inflammatory terms civil union" or "domestic partnership," and New Jersey is still hashing out its terminology. The majority of the states have laws or constitutional amendments restricting "marriage" to one woman and one man.
Denmark in 1989 became the first nation to legally recognize same-sex relationships, and Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland swiftly followed that lead. Much of Europe, including France, Germany, Portugal and Hungary, now recognizes same-sex partnerships for a range of purposes, including inheritance, property and social-benefits rights. Countries in formerly communist blocs — the Czech Republic and Slovenia — recognize partnerships, and Croatia has extended some economic benefits to same-sex couples.
In September, the Senate in Uruguay voted 25 to 2 to pass a broad partnership law, positioning that country to be the first Latin American nation to extend legal rights when it is passed by the full legislature. New Zealand's and Australia's domestic partnership laws allow some of the most important benefits, such as immigration, inheritance and property rights. The government in Taiwan suggested a bill allowing same-sex marriage, though nothing has yet come of it. In Brazil, Argentina, Italy and Switzerland, some economic and legal rights have been extended by city and regional authorities. Just last month, Mexico City broke ground as the first government entity in that country to recognize same-sex civil unions.
These developments clearly mean that the number of same-sex couples whose relationships are legally valid is on the rise. By the end of the decade, it is possible that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples will have entered legal marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
When Britain's domestic partnership registration law went into effect last December, government ministers predicted that between 11,000 and 22,000 couples would benefit from the law by 2010. More than 6,500 same-sex couples registered just in the first year.
About 12,000 Canadian, 7,000 Dutch, 2,500 Belgian and 1,300 Spanish same-sex couples are already married.
These unions are already having ripple effects around the globe. In Ireland, a lesbian couple is asking the government to recognize their Canadian marriage. A court in the Caribbean country of Aruba ruled that the Dutch marriage of a lesbian couple must be registered in Aruba, which is part of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
How this trend will play out in countries that have not yet recognized same-sex relationships is still up in the air. Will the United States, for instance, accommodate a major corporation's desire to have one of its top executives from Canada move here with her legal spouse? Or a domestic-partnered diplomat from New Zealand? Or an American lucky enough to find the man of his dreams while working in South Africa? Will Sir Elton John's highly publicized civil union with longtime partner David Furnish be recognized by a hospital emergency room in Las Vegas or St. Louis or Salt Lake City should one of them fall ill on a concert tour?
To be sure, the backlash prompted by increased gay and lesbian visibility, whether through marriage or other demands for equality, has been fierce. South Africa's decision has drawn angry responses from religious and community leaders. Angry crowds in Moscow last May jeered a few dozen lesbian and gay marchers and demanded that Russia be cleansed of the evils of homosexuality. Likewise, an international gay pride event in Jerusalem had to be held in a stadium — instead of as a parade — because of threats and lobbying from ultra-Orthodox Jews and some Muslim and Christian groups.
Gay communities haven't even raised the issue of marriage in Latvia, Uganda and Honduras — where police violence and state discrimination are still standard practice. Yet the governments of those countries have gone out of their way to promote anti- gay hostility by outlawing same-sex marriage.
In Nigeria, a bill awaiting legislative action would impose criminal penalties for engaging in or performing a marriage ceremony for two men or two women.
In the United States, President Bush has consistently pushed the radical measure of amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, as has Australia's prime minister, John Howard.
Despite the backlash, one fact is self-evident. The trend toward recognizing the dignity and love of two people of the same sex will not disappear. As barriers to same-sex couples fall, courts, legislatures, religious denominations and businesses everywhere will need to respond.
As Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero proclaimed when his newly elected reform government approved same-sex marriage in 2005: "We are not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."
PAULA L. ETTELBRICK is the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
