Friday, December 28, 2007

Court Halts Oregon Gay Partnership

Federal Court Halts Oregon Gay Partner Registryby The Associated Press
Posted: December 28, 2007 - 8:00 pm ET
(Portland, Oregon) A federal judge on Friday placed on hold a state domestic partnership law that was set to take effect Jan. 1, pending a February hearing.
The law would give some spousal rights to same-sex couples.
Opponents asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman to intercede after the Oregon secretary of state's office ruled in October that they had failed to collect enough valid signatures on a referendum to block the law.
The Oregon measure covers benefits related to inheritance rights, child-rearing and custody, joint state tax filings, joint health, auto and homeowners insurance policies, visitation rights at hospitals and others. It does not affect federal benefits for married couples, including Social Security and joint filing of federal tax returns.
After the Legislature approved the domestic partnership law this year, gay rights opponents launched an effort to collect enough signatures to suspend the law and place it on the November 2008 ballot for a statewide vote.
But state elections officials said this fall that the effort fell 116 valid signatures short of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law.
In court Friday, Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes the measure, said the state's review process was flawed, disenfranchising citizens who had signed petitions.
The state's largest gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon, criticized the judge's decision.
"It's unfair our families once again are bearing the brunt of this ongoing struggle," said Jeana Frazzini, a spokesman for the group.
Eight other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples - Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay

Thursday, December 27, 2007

RI legislature seen as unlikely to take up gay marriage issue :: EDGE Boston

RI legislature seen as unlikely to take up gay marriage issue :: EDGE Boston

Wednesday Dec 26, 2007
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Rhode Island lawmakers seem hesitant to wade any further into the gay marriage debate during the 2008 legislative year.The issue resurfaced recently when the state’s highest court prevented a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts -- the only state where same-sex marriage is legal -- from getting divorced in their home state of Rhode Island.In the majority ruling, the state’s top court said lawmakers never gave Family Court the authority to dissolve same-sex unions and said any solutions rest with Rhode Island’s legislature. Bills authorizing same-sex marriage and civil unions have died in legislative committees for years.House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, a Democrat who announced he is gay during a floor debate, says he’s not sure Democratic leaders would support a bill offering even limited divorce protections to same-sex couples married in the Bay State.

NH, Ore. Prepare To Recognize Gay Couples

"NH, Ore. Prepare To Recognize Gay Couples"

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 26, 2007 - 12:00 pm ET
(Concord, New Hampshire) January 1 will usher in laws in states at opposite sides of the country that provide rights for same-sex couples.
In New Hampshire, dozens of gay and lesbian couples will herald the New Year by having civil unions. A special mass civil union ceremony is planned for midnight January 1 on the Statehouse steps.
Other couples will have ceremonies in towns across the state.
A new license was created for civil unions and became available at local clerk's offices in towns earlier this month.
New Hampshire is the fourth state to grant civil unions after New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont. Neighboring Massachusetts in 2004 became the only state to allow gay marriage.
The law was passed earlier this year and signed into law in May by Gov. John Lynch.
Couples entering civil unions will have the same state rights, responsibilities and obligations as married couples. Same-sex unions from other states also would be recognized if they were legal in the state where they were performed.
New Hampshire officials are estimating 3,500 to 4,000 couples will get civil unions in 2008. That's roughly double the 1,704 unions performed in Vermont in 2000, the first year they were offered.
In Oregon a state domestic partner registry will formally come into existence on January 1.
The law allows same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples unable to marry to form legally recognized partnerships.
Couples who register will be guaranteed the right to visit partners in hospital and make medical decisions, file joint state tax returns, and have joint health insurance plans or take sick leave to care for their partners.
The law was passed after a legal battle for gay marriage failed.
The issue of same-sex marriage in the state arose in March 2004 when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted.
The constitutional amendment, known as Measure 36, was passed that November.
In 2005 the state Supreme Court ruled the amendment legal and efforts to enact the domestic partner registry began.
January 1 also will mark a second LGBT law coming into effect. That measure will a bar discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in housing, employment, public accommodation, education and public services statewide.
©365Gay.com 2007

Gay Marriage Not The Biggest Threat To Cherished Institution

Gay Marriage Not The Biggest Threat To Cherished Institution

The Tampa Tribune
Published: December 26, 2007
Twenty-seven states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages and next November, Florida could become the 28th.
But backers of the amendment shouldn't expect Florida voters, most of whom do not approve of gay marriage, to be exercised about this issue during an election year in which there are so many other important matters to talk about.
Gay marriage is last season's politics.
Besides, Florida already has a law outlawing marriage between people of the same sex, so formalizing a ban in the state constitution hardly merits front-burner status.
Florida law says a marriage made somewhere else between persons of the same sex is "not recognized for any purpose in this state." The language is clear.
Plus, there's the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that says states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. That law protects Florida, if the state needs protection, just as it does the other 49.
Yet Florida4Marriage, the sponsor of the proposal, has collected the 611,000 signatures needed to put the amendment, already cleared by the Florida Supreme Court, on the ballot in 2008.
It's easy to accuse the group of prejudice, as its critics have, but Florida4Marriage insists its purpose is to defend traditional marriage and its foundational role in a stable, civil society. The group says state laws are not enough when judges, with the swipe of a pen, can overturn them.
But the issue has also helped forge the political landscape. Republicans have effectively used the gay-marriage ban amendments against Democrats, who want gay votes but don't want to alienate the majority of voters who don't sanction same-sex marriages.
In 2004, when President Bush was up for reelection, 11 states passed marriage bans with vote totals averaging 67 percent. Two years ago, when the Republicans lost control of Congress, seven more states passed bans. However, Arizona voters refused to go along.
We're sympathetic to those who would protect traditional marriage as a sacred trust. These are people who fear for our culture and lament the loss of respect for the institution. But changing the constitution, when it hasn't proven necessary, is not the way to do it.
Americans have grown more tolerant of their gay and lesbian neighbors and are appalled by the violence and discrimination some have faced.
A number of state and local governments have responded by outlawing discrimination based on a person's sexual preference. And an increasing number of businesses are granting spousal benefits to homosexual partners as a way of retaining valuable employees.
Homosexuals should not be denied employment, public accommodation or any of the civil liberties enjoyed by Americans.
But marriage is not simply a civil rights issue. It is an amalgam of faith, values and tradition. Changing its definition is no trifling manner.
But make no mistake. Gay marriage is not the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. Bigger assaults are exposed by divorce rates and the growing number of out-of-wedlock births. Almost half of marriages today end in divorce. In Florida, one in four babies is born to an unwed mother.
To best defend the institution of marriage, we should quit looking for bogeymen where there are none.

Insurance unclear in civil unions

Insurance unclear in civil unions


Not all couples will be able to share coverage

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS Monitor staff
December 23. 2007 12:02AM
After Jan. 1, state workers and many others who celebrate a civil union will be able to add their same-sex partners to their health care plans. Albeit with a tax consequence.
But some, perhaps many, gay and lesbian workers won't have the same opportunity.
That's because employers who self-insure their workers - as opposed to buying a health care plan through an insurance company - will have discretion to extend or deny benefits to their employees' gay partners. And the self-insured population is not a small one in New Hampshire, according to the state insurance department: It's estimated at 46 percent of the insured population.
Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, for example, is self-insured. So is Target. Wal-Mart does not extend benefits to same sex partners. Target, meanwhile, does. Neither company returned calls seeking how they'll respond to the new civil union law after Jan. 1.
"What we've said . . . is that assumptions about equal access to spousal benefits is dangerous," said Michele Granda, an attorney with GLAD, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, in Boston. The group has hosted four workshops in New Hampshire for people considering entering a civil union.
This summer, New Hampshire became the fourth state in the country to allow same-sex couples to legally unite in a civil union. The others are Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage.
At GLAD's workshops, Granda has warned couples to consider the serious limits, even repercussions, at the workplace and beyond as they consider pursuing a civil union. She urges couples to seek the help of authorities such as their company's human resource director, a lawyer or tax expert.
For example, couples who may want to adopt internationally may want to forgo a civil union that will out them as gay because some countries won't allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt. For similar reasons, a civil union is dangerous for a couple if one partner is in the military and serves under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But questions over health benefits are some of the most frequent, Granda said.
The first challenge is determining what benefits are available under an employer's health care plan.
• State, county and municipality workers will all be able to extend coverage to their gay and lesbian partners - with a caveat. State workers will have to obtain a civil union first. Next year, the domestic partner benefits currently available to same-sex couples will be discontinued, and only couples who get a civil union can obtain joint coverage under a single plan.
Sara Willingham, of the state personnel division, said about 40 couples currently use the state's domestic partner benefit.
• Anyone who is self-employed and purchases insurance will also be able to purchase coverage for a partner.
• Federal workers will not be able to share coverage with a gay or lesbian partner because federal law does not recognize same-sex unions.
• Private-sector employees who get coverage under an insurance plan regulated by the state will be allowed to extend coverage to a same-sex partner. If your company, for example, uses Anthem as an insurance provider, you will be able to cover your partner.
• The situation is different for private sector employees who work for a company that offers insurance itself rather than buying it through a plan. Those companies that self-insure can decide whether to extend the benefit to partners.
Here's why: Self-insured plans are not regulated by state law, and the federal law that controls them does not dictate who can be a beneficiary. That leaves the company to decide.
Sometimes, employers don't understand the new law's implications on benefits.
"If they understand they have the discretion to do the right thing," Granda said, "they often will."
This happened last week at Rymes Propane and Oil, a self-insured company with offices in Concord and beyond. Dan Bilodeau, a driver for the company who lives in Concord, asked if he'd be able to add his partner, Gary Benson, to his insurance plan after they celebrated their civil union Jan. 1.
Bilodeau said his human resource director was initially unaware about the specifics of the new law and was unable to give him a clear answer. Bilodeau pursued the matter and learned late last week the company would allow him to add Benson to his plan.
"I am just so excited," Bilodeau said. He said the decision left him feeling valued and equal to everyone else at the company.
The company's human resources director could not be reached last week.
But Granda suspects there are also some employers who purposely misrepresent the discretion options under self-insured plans.
"I think many employers who don't support their gay employees use federal law as an excuse," said Granda. They tell their employees the can't extend benefits, when the truth is, they aren't required to but can.
Granda and others describe this aspect of the law as evolving and confusing. Patricia McGrath, an attorney with Devine, Millimet and Branch in Manchester, advises employers on a variety of matters. When it comes to the civil union law and benefits, her advice is to offer gay and lesbian couples the same benefits extended to married couples.
Regardless of what the insurance laws allow, she believes employers could face a discrimination lawsuit if they treat same-sex and married couples differently when it comes to health benefits.
"I ask them, 'Do you want to be the first to test it'?" McGrath said. In the end, the cost of providing health care to a partner will likely be less than the cost of defending a lawsuit. Plus, there is goodwill and good morale to be gained, she said.
But it's not all good news when employees are able to add same-sex partners to their health care plan. There is a tax consequence and it can be prohibitive, said Willingham from the state personnel division.
Federal law allows employers to grant health care to a worker's married spouse without an additional tax. But when a person adds a same-sex partner to his health care plan, the value of that plan must show up in the employee's paycheck. And he must pay federal tax on that value.
So if an employee adds a partner to her plan and value of that coverage is $6,000 a year, her salary will be taxed as though she got a raise of $6,000.
Same-sex couples who each have coverage under their individual plans may want to maintain those plans to avoid additional taxes. But it's a tax worth paying for someone like Bilodeau, he said, because his partner does not currently have health coverage.
It's distinctions like these that lead many to argue that civil unions do not go far enough in giving gay and lesbian couples equal rights. "Employers may think fair is fair, but it's not yet fair," Granda said.

Little girl, big voice

Little girl, big voice fights for Marriage Equality


By:Kristen J. Tsetsi, Journal Inquirer
12/24/2007
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
WINDSOR - Don't let her small voice fool you. Rebecca Lazarus - or "Becca" as she likes to be called - is a fighter, and she's already had more experience with activism at age 13 than most 50-somethings managed to accrue during the Vietnam War era.
An eighth-grader at Sage Park Middle School, she was presented with an award during a Board of Education meeting last month in recognition of her community service and focus on civil rights.
In her battle for the legalization of same-sex marriage, Rebecca has been interviewed on National Public Radio, has spoken in front of several support groups, created a Connecticut chapter of COLAGE, which stands for Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, and spoke in February at a news conference at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.She told reporters at the news conference that she lives with two fathers, Eric Lazarus and Jason Charette, who are in a committed relationship, but otherwise she's "like any other kid." Lazarus, 41, works in finance for an advertising company and Charette, 32, is a manager at a local business."The only difference between my family and yours is my parents can't get married ... even though they've been together for eight years," Rebecca said.Her two fathers have since exchanged vows in a civil union ceremony this past June.Co-parent adoption is keyAs Rebecca sees it, what she's fighting for is not just about two people being able to use the word "marriage."Because Lazarus, who is her biological father, and Charette aren't legally married, if something were to happen to Lazarus, Rebecca could be taken away from Charette and put in foster care unless the couple has what's called a co-parent adoption in place.A co-parent adoption guarantees that the second parent's custody rights and responsibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or become incapacitated.Important to Rebecca to clarify is that she is not fighting to try to change the traditional religious view of marriage but, instead, to have same-sex marriages recognized in the political and legal sector.To explain the distinction, Lazarus said that if marriage were only a religious institution, marriages between men and women performed in a secular setting, such as in a court or by a notary, wouldn't be recognized.Rebecca said she would most like to speak with the officials of opposing organizations."I feel that some of these people just aren't educated in these types of families. Maybe they're getting the wrong information from the wrong people," she said.One such organization is The Family Institute of Connecticut, whose executive director, Peter Wolfgang, said in November that, "If marriage is redefined into something it has never been, it becomes destructive to women and children, in particular.""I have a good life," Rebecca said. "I just want peace. I know there will be fighting because there's freedom of speech, but I just want people to respect and tolerate other people even if they're different. We're all different, but we're all the same."Lazarus echoed that sentiment."One thing we teach our children is freedom of speech and acceptance," he said.Since becoming such a public figure, Rebecca has been approached by private schools eager to enroll her."I think she's going to do great wherever she goes," Lazarus said. "We thought we'd give her the opportunity to look."How she finds the time for such passionate advocacy is a mystery. In addition to keeping up with her COLAGE chapter, which has grown from 25 members in February to its current 40 families, Rebecca is engaged in a myriad of activities. She plays saxophone in a competition jazz band, tutors sixth-graders, and participates in peer mediation, a program in which students trained as mediators help their peers reach a solution. She'll also be a member of a teen question-and-answer panel at a True Colors, Inc. Sexual Minority Youth and Family Services conference in March. Rebecca and Lazarus describe True Colors as "an organization designed for youth who are living in foster care after being thrown out of their homes for coming out as gay, lesbian, or transgender."Sought after advocateMembers of GLAD - Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders - contacted Rebecca in their search for outspoken youth to accompany them on a national campaign. Rebecca and her fathers have also been approached to appear on various daytime talk shows, including The Today Show.Rebecca wasn't able to do The Today Show, but she wasn't disappointed. Not only did the spot go to a friend of hers, who is also in the COLAGE organization, but it meant she had one less thing to do."She does so much that it's OK when things pass up," Lazarus said.One TV program received an immediate "no" when Rebecca discovered the producer's intent was to conduct a social experiment involving a religious, heterosexual family out camping together with a family with same-sex parents.Lazarus called the show "very Jerry Springer."Because Rebecca isn't in it for fame or recognition, she can afford to be choosy about the kind of publicity she receives.In fact, Lazarus said, Rebecca doesn't seek out the publicity - it finds her. And he and Charette will ask Rebecca before new interview opportunities arise if she feels like doing another.She always says yes."With her being so outspoken, it's pulled us out," Lazarus said. "It's made our life easier by being out.""Outspoken" might be an understatement.A few years ago during Family Week, an annual event held on Cape Cod for children of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender parents, Rebecca butted heads with controversial extremist Fred Phelps.Phelps, along with fellow church members made up primarily of his own family, is widely known for picketing soldiers' funerals with signs bearing such slogans as "God hates you."Phelps and followers arrived at Family Week and began handing out bags to children that were stuffed with pamphlets, Rebecca said."The pamphlets said things like, 'Your parents are going to burn in hell,'" Rebecca said.There was a screaming match in front of a town hall, with Rebecca and a few of her friends "telling Phelps off" until his group left, Lazarus said.Rebecca was 11 or 12 at the time."I'm one of those people that, if you start something with me, I end it," Rebecca said.Asked what she'll do when and if same-sex marriages are legalized, Rebecca said she plans to continue fighting to strengthen the national hate crimes bill.As for what she plans to do for a career, Rebecca said she would like to be a journalist, a lobbyist, or a history teacher. All while continuing with her work as a human rights activist, of course.

Nepal Supreme court directs govt to safeguard gay rights

Nepal Supreme court directs govt to safeguard gay rights

Nepal's TOP court has directed the government to frame laws to "safeguard the rights" of gays and lesbians so they could "live an independent life" in the highly conservative Himalayan state.
"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-sexual and inter-sex (LGBTI) people are also 'natural persons' though they are not masculine or feminine from the perspective of gender," the Supreme Court said on Friday, adding: "And they should be allowed to enjoy all the rights defined by national and international human rights law and instruments."
So far, the members of the LGBT community, particularly transsexuals have been complaining that they don’t enjoy rights as normal Nepali citizen. “We are not treated as citizens of the country nor are we allowed to vote,” Shankar (also known as Shanti) told Hindustan Times on Saturday.
The court verdict was in response to public interest litigations filed by several NGOs.
The two judges of the division bench — Bal Ram KC and Pawan Kumar Ojha ordered the government to both create a conducive environment for gays and amend the existing laws. Lawyers claimed that the verdict is the first of its kind in Asia.
"So far, no apex court has passed such a verdict," Hari Phuyal, a senior advocate, said, adding that the sexual minorities would be able to travel abroad and exercise their franchise as well.
In the petition, the litigants had also requested to allow same sex marriage. But the apex court emphasised on the need to study the rate of success of same sex marriages and laws on same sex marriages in other countries.
A seven-member committee, headed by a doctor designated by the Ministry of Health would study the possibilities of same sex marriages.
The court also ordered the government to frame laws on same sex marriages on the basis of the committee's findings.
The gay community in Nepal has been demanding their inclusion within the framework of the new constitution, which would be drafted by the Constituent Assembly.
The LGBTI members have also been demanding for reservation in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that their rights are protected while drafting the new constitution.

In stand for gay marriage, some churches halt all nuptials

In stand for gay marriage, some churches halt all nuptials

In stand for gay marriage, some churches halt all nuptials
United Church of Christ congregations lead charge to make civil and religious ceremonies different
By Patrick Condon
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Article Launched: 12/22/2007 02:58:42 AM PST

MINNEAPOLIS -- It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, you can't get legally married at Lyndale United Church of Christ.
The small, liberal church in south Minneapolis was the first of several Twin Cities congregations last year to stop performing civil marriage ceremonies as long as same-sex marriage is illegal.
These churches, and a handful of others across the country, will still hold a religious ceremony to bless the unions of straight and gay couples -- but straight couples must go separately to a judge or justice of the peace for the marriage license.
"If you feel that gay and lesbian people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?" asked the Rev. Don Portwood. The Nebraska native has been lead pastor at the 120-member Lyndale United Church of Christ for 27 years.
The churches in question minister to only a handful of the most liberal churchgoers in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and most have a large contingent of gay congregants.
"Go 20 miles out of the city and it will be a different story," said the Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, executive director of Biblical Witness Fellowship, a New Hampshire-based conservative movement within the United Church of Christ.
But the pastors leading these congregations don't expect other churches, particularly those from more conservative denominations, to follow suit. Rather, it's a new strategy for achieving legal same-sex marriage, with supporters hoping to push toward a society that views civil and religious marriage as separate institutions.
"There's a real shift going on here, where I think more and more people are recognizing the distinction, that what the state offers and the church offers are two different things," said the Rev. Mark Wade, pastor of the 540-member Unitarian Universalist Church in Asheville, N.C.
Last year, Wade stopped signing marriage licenses and now speaks of it as a stand for the separation of church and state. "We tell couples to go to the magistrate," Wade said. "I felt I couldn't serve an unjust law. That didn't make any sense to me."
It's difficult to know how many congregations nationwide have taken such a step. Wade said he knows of about a dozen fellow Unitarian ministers who won't sign marriage licenses. There are at least five congregations in the Twin Cities that either no longer perform civil marriages or are phasing them out -- three from the United Church of Christ, one Unitarian and one Lutheran.
Portwood said he knows of at least several other United Church of Christ congregations across the country that have made the change. Several messages left with United Church of Christ headquarters in Cleveland were not returned.
The United Church of Christ, which counts presidential candidate Barack Obama among its members, is one of the oldest denominations in the United States, with roots going back to the Pilgrims. In 2005, the church's General Synod voted to support same-sex marriage as a civil right, the first mainline Christian denomination to do so.
That started the discussion at several of the United Church of Christ congregations in the Twin Cities that led to the current policies. "I don't know that they thought we'd go quite this far," said the Rev. Sarah Campbell, lead pastor at the 650-member Mayflower Congregational Church in Minneapolis, which followed the Lyndale church's lead a few weeks later.
"I think both the civil and the conventional aspects of marriage are important, but they both have their place," Campbell said. "It's just gotten mixed up where they're not clearly separated. I would say it's only a matter of time before we move to what they've done in Canada, South Africa, Europe -- separating out those two aspects."
Runnion-Bareford, whose group led the opposition to United Church of Christ's declaration on same-sex marriage in 2005, said that might not be as difficult to achieve as some might imagine. If same-sex marriage becomes legal in states other than Massachusetts, Runnion-Bareford predicted, then churches such as Lyndale and Mayflower could find unlikely allies.
"I know there are clusters of conservative pastors in Massachusetts who have discussed refusing civil ceremonies so as not to be under pressure to perform same-gender ceremonies," said Runnion-Bareford, who said he believes that government and the church have a joint interest in promoting traditional marriage as a societal good.
"The question they are putting forward is, what is that connection going to be?" he said. "Will clergy continue to be civil agents? What will be the changing picture of the relationship between religion and marriage?"

Friday, December 21, 2007

New Bid To Provide Benefits To Partners Of Gay Federal Workers

New Bid To Provide Benefits To Partners Of Gay Federal Workers

(Washington) Legislation was introduced in the Senate Wednesday that would provide domestic partner benefits to federal employees.
The bill filed by Sens. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) has 19 co-sponsors.
Under the legislation a federal employee and same-sex domestic partner would be eligible to participate in federal health benefits, the Family and Medical Leave program, long term care, insurance, and retirement benefits.
These workers and their domestic partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
More than half of Fortune 500 companies and almost 10,000 other companies provide benefits to domestic partners. Hundreds of state and local governments – including Connecticut and Oregon - and scores of colleges and universities, said Sen. Smith.
"The federal government should be leading the way rather than following when it comes to providing benefits,” Smith said. “Rights and benefits must be afforded to all employees equally. This bill corrects the current inequity.”
Lieberman said that it is time for the federal government to catch up to the private sector. "Not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment."
"It makes good economic and policy sense. And it is the right thing to do," Lieberman said.
Lieberman and Smith introduced similar legislation last Congress. The bill died without coming to a committee vote.
Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that offering benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than one half of one percent.
In surveys, employers report that they cover domestic partners to boost recruitment and retention of quality employees, as well as to be fair. Sens. Lieberman and Smith in a joint statement said the federal government cannot adequately compete with the private sector and state and local governments for qualified personnel if it doesn’t provide domestic-partner benefits.
©365Gay.com 2007

The devil’s in the details: our guide to the candidates

The devil’s in the details: our guide to the candidates

by Laura Kiritsy
associate editor
Wednesday Dec 19, 2007With the Iowa caucuses (Jan. 3) and the New Hampshire primary (Jan. 8) just around the corner, you can’t flip on the television, pick up a newspaper or log on to YouTube without encountering images of a weepy Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton trying to soften her edges or Rudy Giuliani perusing holiday tchotchkes at a barn in New Hampshire. The pundits are opining endlessly over minutia like whether the fact that John Edwards prefers campaigning in jeans or that Mike Huckabee used to be fat will help or hurt their chances in the presidential sweepstakes. And what of the impact of Oprah’s endorsement of Barack Obama? We’re guessing it’s got more heft than Sen. Joe Lieberman’s nod to candidate Sen. John McCain and Clinton’s endorsement from Babs combined. Obviously, we’re just as guilty of contributing to the media cacophony, especially given the fact that Massachusetts voters will be going to the polls on Feb. 5, about month earlier than we usually do. For the past year, we’ve heard candidates parse, parry, flip-flop, backtrack and nip/tuck their positions on LGBT issues. The Democratic candidates have done this all the while promising to advance a pro-gay agenda: All of the Dem contenders support repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," and parts, or all, of DOMA. With the exception of Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former U.S. senator Mike Gravel, who both support marriage equality, all of the candidates support civil unions. All have expressed support for federal benefits for same-sex partners, immigration equality, trans-inclusive ENDA and hate crimes bills, comprehensive sex education and increased HIV/AIDS funding. Meanwhile, the Republicans for the most part have tried to sugarcoat their anti-gay views with bland statements about tolerance. While it would appear that support for LGBT rights breaks down along party lines our attentions have turned up some little nuggets that might make you wonder. For Democratic voters concerned about LGBT rights maybe it’s time to look more closely at which candidates have actually been able to produce results and been willing to show leadership on the issues. Sure, all of the Dems want to do away with "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," but why haven’t any of the sitting senators in the race introduced a version of a House bill to do just that? Mmmm.For Republican voters concerned about LGBT rights, well, maybe there’s a lesser evil somewhere in the pack. Either way, our handy-dandy guide to the presidential contenders aims to give you a closer look at the candidates. Hope it helps you pick a winner.

Dems
Biden
The Good: Spoke out on Meet the Press against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. Has never publicly described an LGBT person as "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."The Bad: Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Has largely been absent from the LGBT community on the campaign trail. Has a yarmulke-sized bald spot - who knew?Quotable: "Our allies - the British, the French, all our major allies - gays openly serve. I don’t know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, ’Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? Are you straight?’ This is ridiculous." Spin Control: To Human Rights Campaign’s question about supporting marriage equality, Biden’s campaign said he "believes government has an obligation to ensure that individuals are free from discrimination and that fundamental principle - that freedom and justice should be equally applied to each American - has guided his actions throughout his service as a United State Senator." Then stated that Biden "supports letting states determine how to recognize civil unions and how to define marriage."
ClintonThe Good: Led strategy sessions to defeat the federal marriage amendment in the Senate. Sported a mullet on her recent appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show.The Bad: Asked by ABC News if she believed homosexuality is immoral, Clinton responded, "Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude." Spent the next few days backtracking. Quotable: "We’re going to make sure that nothing stands in the way of loving couples, gay or straight, who want to adopt children."Spin Control: "We were able to defeat [the FMA] but I don’t know that we could have defeated it if we had not had DOMA. I mean, that is something that, you know, has provided a great protection against what was clearly the Republican strategy blessed by George Bush, led by the congressional Republicans, to just cynically use marriage as a political tool."

Dodd
The Good: Though Dodd did not participate in the Logo network’s LGBT forum last August reportedly because of a schedule conflict, he posted his answers to the questions that were asked of other candidates at the forum on his website afterward. Touts his 100 percent rating on Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard.The Bad: Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Gives off bad John Kerry vibes when he regularly prefaces his support for civil unions with the statement, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."Quotable: "Before you answer the question of how you feel about the rights of people who are gay or lesbian ask yourself ... how would I want my children or grandchildren treated if that’s the sexual orientation they have?"Spin Control: Has used some variation of the above quote a million times on the stump.
EdwardsThe Good: Has aggressively courted the LGBT vote throughout his campaign, most recently in a meeting with N.H. Freedom to Marry Coalition. Says that his universal healthcare plan will cover hormone treatment for trans people.The Bad: Campaign used occasion of Ann Coulter calling him a "faggot" to raise cash with fundraising letter that made no mention of gay people. Affirmatively answered a question about whether he’d support a staff member transitioning on the job without ever using the word "transgender."Quotable: "The kids who go to public schools need to understand why same-sex couples are the parents of some of the children, they need to understand that these are American families just like every American family."Spin Control: Buffers his opposition to marriage equality by noting his wife Elizabeth supports it, as in, "A lot of people I love and care about feel the same way Elizabeth does. I’m very strong about ending discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. But I’m not quite where Elizabeth is yet."

Grave
lThe Good: The only presidential candidate to march in this year’s San Francisco Pride Parade. Has actually uttered the word "transgender" on TV.The Bad: Did not participate in San Francisco’s Dyke March. Poll numbers still hovering around 1 percent. Quotable: "Love between a man and a woman is love. Love between a man and a man is love. Love between a woman and a woman is love. What this country needs is a hell of a lot more love than it has."Spin Control: Not really. To wit: "It’s sort of ironic that we see the gay community supporting people like Hillary, Obama, Edwards, who for some reason can’t get their arms around [same-sex] marriage."
KucinichThe Good: The only current federal office holder in the race co-sponsoring bill to repeal "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Has also been known to use the word "transgender." Has the hottest spouse on the campaign trail.The Bad: Although in his second bid for the presidency, has roughly the same poll numbers as Mike Gravel.Quotable: "I can’t imagine what it would be like to have met the love of my life and to have such a depth of feeling for her and then be told that no, you can’t be married, because there’s a certain rule or law that won’t let that happen. That would be devastating."Spin Control: "I feel the need to point something out to you, although I’m hopeful it’s not going to take that long, but I was elected to Congress on my fifth try."

Obama
The Good: Recently met with N.H. Freedom to Marry Coalition instead of hanging with Oprah after their Granite State campaign swing. Bested Hillary in public catfight for the support of gay music mogul David Geffen.The Bad: When asked if he thought homosexuality was immoral, hopped in a car and drove away. Pissed off the gays by putting gospel singer Donnie "God delivered me from homosexuality!" McClurkin on his African American gospel music tour, then tried to atone by adding a white gay pastor to the bill.Quotable: "There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community. We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it. To achieve that goal, we must state our beliefs boldly, bring the message of equality to audiences that have not yet accepted it, and listen to what those audiences have to say in return."Spin Control: "My basic belief is that marriage ... connotes to so many people a religious and not just civil element - and that includes me by the way - that it’s going to be very hard to build consensus around the idea of extending marriage - using that term - to all people, including those who are same-sex."
RichardsonThe Good: Has a strong record on LGBT issues as governor of New Mexico, including signing a trans-inclusive non-discrimination bill. Now says he regrets voting for DOMA as a congressman in 1996. Confessed at an HRC event that he’s a Trekkie and that George Takei, an openly gay man, is his hero.The Bad: Laid an egg at Logo’s LGBT issues forum ("It’s a choice!" he said of homosexuality), then spent the next few days on the LGBT media circuit trying to recover. Quotable: "We are fed up with Karl Rove’s machinations and Ann Coulter’s ignorant epithets. Actually we’re fed up with Ann Coulter, period."Spin Control: Of his DOMA vote: "[A]t that time the objective in passing DOMA was to fight a huge assault for a constitutional amendment in the Congress to ban marriage. It was sort of a cheap political way to decimate a bad initiative."


GOP
Giuliani
The Good: As NYC mayor signed sweeping domestic partnership legislation, marched in city Pride parade and hosted an annual Pride event at Gracie Mansion. Co-signed letter to President Bush in 2001 urging him to cover same-sex domestic partners with 9/11 victims compensation fund. Dressed in drag, he let Donald Trump nuzzle his breasts. The Bad: Icky taste in men. Has flip-flopped on support for civil unions and a federal hate crimes bill. Hasn’t talked up his mayoral record on LGBT issues on the campaign trail as much as his endorsement from anti-gay fundie Pat Robertson.Quotable: On signing DP benefits into NYC law, he said, "I’m proud of it. I think it puts New York City ahead of other places in the country."Spin Control: "I do not believe under the state that presently exists, with the Defense of Marriage Act and basically one state that has by judicial fiat created same-sex marriage, I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment at this point. If a lot of states start to do that - five or six states - then we should have a constitutional amendment."

Huckabee
The Good: Is pissing off Mitt Romney big time with his recent surge in the polls.The Bad: As Arkansas governor, signed one of the first DOMA laws and campaigned for the state’s constitutional amendment. Also supported that state’s efforts to outlaw gay adoption. Says he would "lead - not just support, but lead -" on passing a federal marriage amendment. Has called homosexuality "aberrant, unnatural and sinful." Once suggested that Madonna and Liz Taylor, rather than the feds, fund AIDS research.Quotable: "I miss the America I grew up in where the Gideons gave Bibles to fifth graders instead of school nurses giving condoms to eighth graders."Spin Control: "I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

Hunter
The Good: Hates illegal immigration more than he hates the gays. Polling at the bottom of the GOP heap.The Bad: Overall, a rabid right-winger. Cosponsored the federal Protection of Marriage Amendment. Voted to ban gay adoption in D.C. Ann Coulter loves him.Quotable: "[M]ost Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military ... most of them are conservatives. And they have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. And to force those people to work in a small, tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual, who goes against what they believe to be their principles - and it is their principles - is I think a disservice to them."Spin Control: Not exactly. To wit: "That confidence that marriage gives our children, that moms and dad gives our children, can’t be duplicated by government. We need a constitutional amendment to maintain their marriage."

McCain
The Good: Delivered eulogy at the funeral of Mark Bingham, an openly gay man who died in the 9/11 attacks. Has consistently opposed a federal marriage amendment. The Bad: Endorsed Arizona’s constitutional amendment. Got told off by a New Hampshire high school student who didn’t like McCain’s opposition to civil unions, gay marriage or his support for "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell."Quotable: "I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that, I don’t have any problem with that but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman." Spin Control: "I’ve not known most of the Republican Party as being intolerant. I think that my party practices toleration and there’s some people who are entitled to their views on [gay issues], but overall the policy of the Republican Party has been inclusive."

Paul
The Good: Opposes the federal marriage amendment. Looks an awful lot like out actor Sir Ian McKellen.The Bad: Voted to ban gay adoption in D.C. Has said he would have voted for DOMA. Original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, a bill to prevent federal courts from hearing challenges to DOMA.Quotable: "For every homosexual problem that we have in the military, we have a heterosexual problem in the military."Spin Control: "They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can’t make me personally accept what they do but gay couples can do whatever they want."
RomneyThe Good: Ha!The Bad: Where to start? Has reversed course on every pro-gay pledge he’s ever made. Hires illegal immigrants to mow his lawn, fired gays from his gubernatorial administration. Quotable: "I would not have a pink house, I assure you."Spin Control: "If you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy."

Tancredo
The Good: Hates illegal immigration even more than Duncan Hunter. Is polling only slightly higher than Hunter. The Bad: Says that without a federal marriage amendment, legal recognition of bigamous, polygamous and incestuous relationships will ensue. Voted to ban gay adoption in D.C. Quotable: "You have to remember that we are always just one kooky judge away from actually having homosexual marriage forced on all the rest of us, because of the [full faith and credit] clause in the U.S. Constitution."Spin Control: "Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state’s interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions."

Thompson
The Good: It’s a toss-up: Opposes federal marriage amendment. But wants constitutional amendment that would prevent judges from legalizing same-sex marriage while allowing for legislatively enacted marriage equality.The Bad: Recently came out in support of Florida’s 2008 anti-gay marriage referendum. Guest-starred on Roseanne, was mean to her. As U.S. senator voted for DOMA, against ENDA and hate crimes bills.Quotable: "Factually, the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States is certainly factual."Spin Control: "I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody. And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights."

Proposed gay marriage ban unneeded, insulting -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Proposed gay marriage ban unneeded, insulting -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Proposed gay marriage ban unneeded, insulting
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board
December 20, 2007

ISSUE: Gay marriage ban headed for vote.Let's call this proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage exactly what it is: unneeded, divisive, and a transparent attempt to get out the ultra-conservative vote.And it's also one gigantic example of overkill.Florida law already forbids gay marriage, but that's not nearly enough for the folks at Florida4Marriage.org, which claims it has enough signatures to put the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the November ballot. According to the group, there must be a constitutional amendment to guarantee a permanent prohibition.Who are they kidding?This is one of the oldest political ploys going — get a good red meat issue on the ballot to bring out ultra conservatives who might otherwise sit at home on election day. Maybe scare some people and get a little fear out there. The only thing surprising about this is there isn't a group — yet — that's trying to get an amendment banning flag burning onto the November ballot in Florida.You have to wonder what Florida4Marriage and other such groups are afraid of. And what are they trying to protect us from? If they really are concerned about the sanctity of marriage, let these groups do something about the divorce rate — that's a much bigger threat to marriage than two gay people in love.The Florida Constitution should not be the place for zealots to turn to when they want to advance their cause. The folks promoting the constitutional gay marriage ban are insulting not only gays, but voters of all political ilk who can tell a real issue from a ruse.Unfortunately, it will take up valuable time, and space on a ballot. It never should have gotten that far.BOTTOM LINE: Amendment isn't needed, and looks like a political play.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Uruguay approves gay civil unions

Uruguay approves gay civil unions


Uruguay approves gay civil unions

Mexico City also allows same sex civil unionsUruguay's congress has approved a bill which would allow civil unions for both gay and unmarried straight couples.
It is the first country in Roman Catholic-dominated Latin America to approve such a measure nationwide.
The Uruguayan President, Tabare Vazquez, is now expected to sign the bill into law.
Under its provisions, couples who have lived together for five years will have rights similar to those already enjoyed by married couples.
Couples will have to register their relationship with authorities to gain the cohabitation rights - covering areas such as inheritance, pensions and child custody - and will also be able to formalise the end of their union.
Several cities across Latin America, including Buenos Aires and Mexico City, have recently adopted similar measures.
Gay marriage remains illegal in Uruguay.

Rome Nixes Gay Partner Registry

Rome Nixes Gay Partner Registry

Rome Nixes Gay Partner Registryby 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 18, 2007 - 5:00 pm ET
(Rome) Rome's city council has rejected a proposal for a domestic partner registry for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples who cannot or chose not to marry.
The plan was introduced by Rome's left-of-center coalition government.
It would have allowed couples to sign a register at the city clerk's office and be recognized in the limited areas over which the city has control - such as hospital visitation rights and reduced family rates at municipal recreation centers.
The right-of-center opposition opposed the measure saying the city did not have the power to "redefine the family".
The register was vehemently opposed by the Vatican.
The opposition also mustered enough votes to defeat a motion calling on the federal government to pass legislation recognizing same-sex couples.
Earlier this year the federal cabinet approved the civil partnership bill in a stormy special meeting (story) but with deep cracks in the coalition government Premier Romano Prodi put the issue on the back burner and it has not been submitted to Parliament.
Prodi had been a supporter of moderate rights for same-sex couples since July, 2005 when he met with gay activists, but he opposes gay marriage. (story)
He also has voiced his support for revamping hate crimes and reassignment surgery.
Five LGBT candidates were elected to the Italian parliament last year - all members of the center-left - including the first transsexual to win national election in Italy. (story)
The left has been amalgamating in advance of elections expected next year. Earlier this year the two largest center-left blocks united forming the Democratic Party, naming Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni as its head. Veltroni supports limited rights for same-sex couples had advocated for the Rome registry. He was not, however, present when the city council voted on the proposal.
©365Gay.com 2007

Hungary OKs Civil Partnerships

Hungary OKs Civil Partnerships

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 18, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET
(Budapest) Hungary's left-of-center coalition government has passed legislation giving same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage.
The Registered Partnership Act will go into effect in January 2009. It will allow gay and lesbian couples to register their relationships and recognize partners as next of kin status.
The law will provide guarantees for joint tax filing, decision making in health care, and assure inheritance, social security and pensions rights.
It will not, however, allow same-sex couples to adopt or undergo fertility treatment, nor will it allow couples to share a common surname.
Passage of the legislation was not a surprise. The bill was introduced by the government last month over objections by the small Free Democratic Party in the coalition that it did not go far enough.
The FDP and LGBT rights groups had pressed for marriage equality.
The majority Socialist Party said that society is not yet ready for such a step and pointed to a recent court ruling that upheld the current law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Nevertheless the conservative opposition parties accused the government of of a "hidden attempt" to legalize gay marriage and of threatening families.
Hungary had been under pressure by the European Union to recognize gay and lesbian relationships.
Western European members of the EU all recognize same-sex relationships. Only the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain allow same-sex marriage. Britain has civil partnerships with all of the rights of marriage. The other states have varying forms of civil unions or domestic partner registries.
In Eastern Europe, Czech Republic and Slovenia have limited same-sex partner registries.
In July several hundred skinheads and right-wing activists threw rotten eggs and smoke bombs at people participating in a gay rights parade in Budapest.
A week earlier a member of the coalition government's cabinet came out. Gabor Szetey became the first Hungarian cabinet minister to announce he is gay.
©365Gay.com 2007

LGBT Noise demand gay marriage in Ireland- from Pink News- all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

LGBT Noise demand gay marriage in Ireland- from Pink News- all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

17th December 2007 15:05Tony GrewProtesting the lack of rights that gay couples have in the Republic of Ireland, a new pressure group took to the streets of Dublin at the weekend to protest.Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) Noise wants full civil marriages for gay people, something the Irish government has ruled out as contrary to the country's constitution.Around 50 members of LGBT Noise were joined by gay choir Gloria at their protest on Saturday, where they asked passersby to sign a petition supporting their aims. "There's no obvious public protests for gays campaigning for civil marriage," organiser Mark McCarron told the Irish Times. "A lot of people say 'we don't hear from gay people about this issue'. Well, here we are.”He highlighted the lack of rights gay couples have in relation to care of children, inheritance, pensions and wills. Earlier this month Ireland's Minister of Justice rejected the possibility of a referendum to allow gay marriage.Labour Minister Brian Lenihan said civil partnership was easier to achieve, because gay marriage would require a constitutional change that would split the country.Speaking at the annual meeting of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, he said he was keen to guarantee equality to gay people."This government, as our agreed programme reflects, is committed to full equality of opportunity for all in our society. "In particular, we are committed to providing a more supportive and secure legal environment for same-sex couples" he said."I believe equality for same-sex couples can be achieved through a diversity of legal arrangements and I am very keen that in the interests to your community we should proceed now to bring in a law that will give recognition and protection to same sex couples who are involved in loving stable relationships."The Minister said that the expected law should allow couples to formalise their relationships, undertake mutual rights and obligations, obtain legal protection and legal benefits for their relationships.Earlier this year Prime Minister of Ireland Bertie Ahern said that legislation would be approved during the lifetime of his government.According to Leninan, it is now expected to be introduced by March 2008.GLEN welcomed the Minister's words, but added that only through marriage it was possible to achieve real equality and that they would continue to ask for it.GLEN's Chair Kieran Rose said that his organisation expected "principled, equality-based and comprehensive" legislation.Homosexuality was decriminalised in the Republic of Ireland in 1993.Both discrimination and incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation are illegal.Article 41 of the Irish constitution says that:"The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."It does not give any definition of marriage itself, and thus does not outlaw gay marriage

New Oz PM: No Gay Marriage, Civil Unions

New Oz PM: No Gay Marriage, Civil Unions

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 17, 2007 - 1:00 pm ET
(Sydney, Australia) Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says his government will look at introducing a bill to create a national domestic partner registry but has no intention of legalizing same-sex marriage or allowing civil unions.
Rudd was reacting to press reports on the weekend that claimed some cabinet ministers had told LGBT leaders that a civil union bill was being written.
The Australian Capital Territory recently resurrected legislation rejected by the former federal government to allow civil unions in the territory and Rudd has said his Labor government would not intervene.
Rudd said Monday that gay and lesbian couples need protections, but on a national level he would not support same-sex marriage or civil partnerships.
"Our position has always been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore that always will form the cornerstone of our view on these matters.
In 2004 former Prime Minister John Howard's Liberal government passed legislation limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Rudd said Monday that he has no intention of repealing the law. Instead, the Prime Minister said he prefers a domestic partner registry.
"A relationships register, nationally consistent of the type we've had in Tasmania since 2004 and of the type of which the Victorian Government has recently proposed, we believe is a positive and productive way forward."
Rudd said the government would work on the legislation over the next 12 months.
It is expected to include both same-ex couples and opposite-sex couples who opt not to marry. Couples would register their relationships and receive guarantees in health, pension and inheritance.
Rudd's position reiterates that of his party during last month's election which saw the defeat of the Liberals under Howard.
©365Gay.com 2007

Calif. marriage ruling could come amid 2008 campaign - Washington Blade

Calif. marriage ruling could come amid 2008 campaign - Washington Blade

Too many variables to predict impact on race, experts say
JOEY DiGUGLIELMO Friday, December 14, 2007
Nobody can say with certainty when the California State Supreme Court will rule in a same-sex marriage case it has agreed to hear but observers predict a decision will come in 2008, perhaps just in time to bring the controversial issue back to the front burner during the height of the presidential campaign.Everyone with a stake in the case is in waiting mode as oral arguments haven’t been scheduled. The court said this week one reason it’s taking so long to schedule is because the case has attracted more “friend of the court” briefs than any other case in recent memory, according to Chief Justice Ronald George.He said 45 such briefs from 145 different lobbying organizations have been filed.“We have a lot of material before us,” George told the Associated Press this week. “There is a vast amount of literature to read.”The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case a year ago. All the required written legal arguments were filed by Nov. 15. George said the court expects to hear the case in 2008, then rule within 90 days of oral arguments. The case is not on the court’s January calendar.Same-sex marriage is controversial everywhere in the country but California, which offers domestic partnerships, has had an especially contentious battle. In 2000, Proposition 22, a “protection of marriage initiative,” was approved by 61 percent of voters and represents the only time California voters have had a chance to weigh in on the issue. Citing that vote, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed gay marriage bills passed by state legislators. The second veto came in October. Schwarzenegger, though, has said publicly that if the state Supreme Court rules in favor of the six couples in the case, he’ll abide by the wishes of the court.Meanwhile, efforts are underway for another ballot initiative. Anti-gay groups Protect Marriage and Vote Yes Marriage have eyed the November ballot. If such a measure passes, supporters say it would “protect” marriage from judges and elected officials. While Proposition 22 defined marriage as between a man and a woman in the state family code, the proposed “Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative” would be a constitutional marriage amendment comparable to those other states already have in place. “This means that California voters have the right and the ability to override the judges and politicians to protect marriage for a man and a woman once and for all in the state Constitution,” a press release on Vote Yes Marriage says.Gay political observers and insiders say it’s too early and there are too many variables to say how this might unfold in relation to the presidential race but that hasn’t stopped some from speculating.California state Assemblyman Mark Leno, who sponsored the gay marriage bills of 2005 and 2007, said if the court rules in favor of Equality California and Schwarzenegger is true to his word, the presidential race could get a lot more interesting.“It’s conceivable that we could have a Republican governor on our side and a presidential Democratic nominee against him on this issue,” said Leno, who’s gay.None of the leading Democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — support gay marriage.Leno is optimistic about the case.“I think we have a very good chance of winning,” he said.Other gay political observers are cautious of prognosticating on the matter with so many factors still undecided such as who will secure the Democratic nomination and how and when the California Supreme Court will rule.“It’s hard to speculate with so many what-ifs,” said Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.On same-sex marriage in the ’08 race, Sammon said he “doesn’t expect it to be a huge issue” and that candidates now would be unwise to “use gay issues as a political tool.”Damien LaVera, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, wouldn’t speculate on the impact of marriage on the race, but did say he thinks American voters will be more concerned about the Iraq war, the economy and national security than same-sex marriage.Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said that although the governor has twice vetoed Leno’s gay marriage bills, Schwarzenegger has signed an unprecedented number of pro-gay state bills such as one that provides state funds to aid gay victims of domestic violence, another juvenile justice bill that protects youth from discrimination and another that eases the ability for gay families to choose a common family name and register jointly for state income taxes. As for the presidential hopefuls, Kors had harsh words.“How can you say you’re for equality but against same-sex marriage?” he said.

Activists embrace incremental progress on marriage - Washington Blade

Activists embrace incremental progress on marriage - Washington Blade

Many fear congressional intervention, seek DP expansion
LOU CHIBBARO JR Friday, December 14, 2007
Organizers of a Dec. 6 gay marriage forum in Washington, anticipating a possible heated debate over when D.C. should pass a same-sex marriage law, enlisted the services of a professional meeting facilitator, who was poised to calm flaring tempers.But last week’s Community Forum on Marriage Equality in the District of Columbia played out as a cordial discussion and exchange of information, with most participants agreeing that the threat of congressional intervention makes it too risky for the city to pass a gay marriage bill at the present time.Lane Hudson, a gay Democratic activist and co-founder of D.C. For Marriage, the lead sponsor of the forum, said he expects Congress would try to overturn a gay marriage law in D.C.Hudson and other leaders of the new marriage group joined the city’s established gay organizations in embracing a strategy of expanding the District’s domestic partners law while seeking to persuade Congress to eventually allow the city to legalize full marriage rights for gays.The D.C. Center, a local gay group, along with the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, the gay Asian group AQUA, the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian & Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Men & Women, and the Burgundy Crescent Volunteers co-sponsored the event. Activists participating in the forum said the likelihood that Congress would overturn a same-sex marriage law, and possibly pass a separate law banning the city from enacting gay marriage in the future, was especially troubling because the city government has long been supportive of same-sex marriage rights.All but two members of the 13-member D.C. Council have promised to vote for a same-sex marriage bill, and Mayor Adrian Fenty has pledged to sign such a bill — but only when they believe the legislation would survive congressional review.Michael Crawford, president of D.C. For Marriage, and David Mariner, another one of its founding members, said the specter of congressional intervention should not stop D.C. gays from taking steps to advance marriage rights while continuing to expand the domestic partners law. The two suggested exploring a range of proposals, including possible city recognition of same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or in countries like Canada that have legalized same-sex unions.“We want to make sure that whatever we do reflects the interests and the needs of the community rather than something a handful of people are deciding,” Crawford said after the forum. “All options are on the table right now, and we’re trying to figure out the best way for us to move forward.”Crawford and other participants said they were hopeful that the election of a Democratic president and more gay-supportive members of Congress in 2008 would make it possible for the city to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2009.Among the more than 40 people who turned out for the forum, held at the John A. Wilson municipal building, nearly everyone who spoke expressed support for a more cautious approach aimed at avoiding congressional intervention.One man said he and his partner had married in Massachusetts and that he would like Fenty to issue an order directing the city government to recognize his marriage.During his election campaign last year, Fenty promised to release a legal memo prepared by former D.C. Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti that reportedly addresses the marriage recognition issue. Former Mayor Anthony Williams decided not to release the memo, which insiders say concluded that existing D.C. law would allow the city’s mayor to recognize legally sanctioned same-sex marriages from other states. Upon taking office in January, Fenty changed his mind and decided against releasing the memo. Fenty administration insiders said the mayor believed releasing the memo might antagonize Congress.Discussion over whether Fenty should release the Spagnoletti memo drew the most disagreement among forum participants, prompting meeting facilitator Sabrina Sojourner to close discussion on the issue. Cornelius Baker, a longtime gay and AIDS activist and former executive director of the Whitman-Walker Clinic, told the forum that opposition to same-sex marriage by D.C. residents could also lead to a voter initiative seeking to repeal a same-sex marriage law, even if Congress did not intervene.Baker helped found the Foundation for All D.C. Families, a nonprofit corporation formed by local activists several years ago to put in place an organization to oppose an anti-gay marriage initiative. At the time, a few local faith-based activists filed papers asking the Board of Elections and Ethics to place on the ballot an initiative calling for banning same-sex marriage in the city. The organizers later withdrew the initiative.Baker said the foundation commissioned the nationally known survey research firm Celinda Lake to conduct a poll to determine whether an anti-gay marriage initiative could pass in the District. Baker and other leaders of the foundation have declined to disclose the poll’s findings.At last week’s forum, Baker would only say that some of the poll findings were “encouraging and some not,” with black voters surfacing as an “issue” to be concerned about.Past polling data for D.C. have shown that a sizable portion of the black voters, while liberal and progressive on many issues, hold strong religious beliefs and conservative views on social issues. Some of the city’s black Baptist ministers, for example, have been among the leaders of the national effort to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.Partners law provides most marital rights Local activist Bob Summersgill, who has led efforts to expand the city’s domestic partners law on behalf of the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, gave a slide presentation at the forum showing that recent additions to the law offer domestic partners nearly all of the rights, benefits, and obligations that married couples enjoy under the city’s marriage law.Inheritance and property rights, child custody and alimony provisions, tax deductions, and a wide range of other rights and benefits are now available to domestic partners who choose to register their relationships with the city, Summersgill said. He said the expanded provisions came through 11 separate bills enacted by the D.C. Council since the Council passed the city’s first domestic partners law in 1992.Congress quickly stepped in to prohibit the city from spending any of its funds to implement the 1992 law, effectively putting it on hold until 2001, when it agreed to allow the city to finally put the law into effect. The 1992 law, the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, was limited to providing health insurance benefits to domestic partners of city government employees — only if the employees paid 100 percent of the monthly premiums.The law allowed all domestic partners, not just city government workers, to register their relationships with the city, providing official city recognition, something considered a bold step at the time. Aside from allowing hospital visitation privileges, the 1992 law provided no other benefits or rights to domestic partners who were not employed by the city.Summersgill said the law has been expanded dramatically since that time, with the city expected put the finishing touches on its incremental approach to broadening the domestic partners law in 2008.“What’s left out? The word marriage,” Summersgill said in concluding his presentation.Marriage provides a number of benefits that go beyond the scope of the law, such as status, recognition and personal fulfillment, Summersgill and other participants in the forum said. But they noted that same-sex couples in Massachusetts would have no more legal rights and benefits than D.C.’s domestic partners, even though Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage.This is the case, legal experts have said, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts or anyplace else, and it treats married gays the same as if they were single. Thus the more than 1,300 federal rights and benefits associated with marriage for opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor benefits, are off limits for same-sex couples, whether they are married or not.Gay rights advocates note that such rights and benefits will remain off limits to same-sex couple unless or until the federal government enacts laws to recognize same-sex relationships.

The News-Press, news-press.com, Election, Anti-gay-marriage backers reach signature mark

The News-Press, news-press.com, Election, Anti-gay-marriage backers reach signature mark

By Jim Ashnew-press.com Tallahassee bureau chief Originally posted on December 13, 2007
TALLAHASSEE — Supporters of a Florida petition drive to ban gay marriage announced this morning that they have enough signatures to make the November ballot.“Today, the people of Florida have spoken and they will speak again in November of 2008,” said Orlando attorney John Stemberger, chairman of the People4Marriage.org Campaign.At a morning press conference, the group announced that they have garnered about 1,000 more certified signatures than the 611,009 required."I can't tell you that they've crossed that threshold yet," said Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for Secretary of State Kurt Browning. "They're close."The group was about 300 verified signatures short of the requirement this morning, but they are likely to reach the goal within the next few days, Ivey said.Stemberger vowed to "spend whatever we can raise," to reach the 60 percent majority vote the amendment needs for passage.He cited figures that suggested bi-partisan support for the ban, saying more than 35 percent of the signatures came from Democrats and more than 49 percent came from Republicans. More than 15 percent came from voters with no party affiliation, Stemberger said.One of the signatures belongs to Gov. Charlie Crist, although the state's top Republican has not trumpeted the issue during his first year in office."He's on record of supporting it. He hasn't backed down," Stemberger said.Florida Red&Blue, a bi-partisan coalition that is opposing the measure, never doubted Stemberger’s group would gather enough signatures, a spokesman said.“They’ve been trying for more than two years,” said Stephen Gaskill.Gaskill said his group has amassed a $2 million war chest and expects to spend as much as $10 million to defeat the measure.Gaskill said the measure is a political tool conservatives are using to bolster turnout in a presidential year.The measure is not necessary because Florida already has a law banning same sex marriage, Gaskill said. Supporters merely want a constitutional weapon to challenge domestic partnership laws that give benefits to gay and unmarried couples in Florida, Gaskill said.“The measure is definitely vague and misleading,” Gaskill said. “If this passes, all domestic partnerships are on the chopping block.”Supporters of a similar constitutional measure in Kentucky are now in court challenging that state’s domestic partnership laws, Gaskill said.“This measure is a massive government intrusion into people’s lives,” he said. “This is not what Floridians should be focusing on.”Stemberger told reporters he will not try to overturn Florida’s domestic partnership laws if the measure passes.

GayCityNews - No Gay Divorce in Rhode Island

GayCityNews - No Gay Divorce in Rhode Island


By: ARTHUR S. LEONARD
12/13/2007
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
In a 3-2 decision, the Rhode Island Supreme Court on December 7 ruled that the state's Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide a divorce involving two lesbian residents who married in Massachusetts in 2004.
Advertisement
');
}
// -->
');
document.write('');
}

var cookie_name = 'AdCom696173';
var g_c = 'AdComGb';
setCookie(g_c,'1',8760);
if (document.cookie.indexOf(g_c)!=-1 ){
if (document.cookie.indexOf(cookie_name)==-1){
setCookie(cookie_name,'1',24);
openWin('696173');
}else{
var v = getCookie(cookie_name);
if (v
');
}
//-->
Responding to a question posed by Providence County Family Court Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah, Jr., the court tuned to dictionary definitions of marriage from the period 1955-1965, when the state's family court statute was passed, to limit the court's jurisdiction to divorces involving opposite-sex marriages.In a sharp dissent, Justice Paul A. Suttell, joined by Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg, criticized the court for leaving the couple, Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston, in a "legal limbo."Writing for the majority, Justice William P. Robinson III acknowledged the potential for "palpable hardship to the persons affected," but insisted that remedy can only come through legislative action.Chambers and Ormiston were married on May 26, 2004, just nine days after same-sex marriages were first allowed in Massachusetts, acting quickly since then-Governor Mitt Romney was threatening to sue local clerks allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to marry. Romney cited a 1913 statute rarely invoked and originally intended to prevent interracial marriages by couples traveling there to evade their home state's miscegenation laws.Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court upheld the 1913 statute after a suit from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders but ruled it would only apply to states with explicit same-sex marriage prohibitions. A trial judge later found that Rhode Island same-sex couples can in fact legally marry in Massachusetts, so that state recognizes the Chambers-Ormiston union.Unfortunately for them, Massachusetts will only exercise jurisdiction over a divorce petition that involves one of its own residents, so the couple cannot simply return there to end their marriage.Justice Robinson's opinion avoided both federal constitutional questions involving Full Faith and Credit or the common law doctrine of "comity," under which states generally recognize as valid marriages lawfully contracted elsewhere. Instead, he focused on interpretation of the family court statute, enacted in 1961, to decide whether the union Chambers and Ormiston seek to dissolve is in fact a "marriage" as legislators in that year would have understood.Posing the question that way essentially answers it. Not surprising dictionaries at the time did not contemplate same-sex unions.Justice Suttell in dissent pointed out that Rhode Island courts have jurisdiction to grant divorces regardless of whether state law there would have allowed the marriage in the first place, for example in the case of an incestuous union. The same applies to underage and polygamous marriages. Furthermore, as Suttell noted, Rhode Island has traditionally considered as valid any marriage legal in the jurisdiction where it was performed. By its dictionary-based jurisprudence, the majority of the court in this case created a "gay exception" to a well-established legal rule, for no articulated reason.Suttell invoked a Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling from 1897 to observe, "we are bound to construe a statute in the most beneficial way which its language will permit, in order to prevent inconsistency or injustice," clearly a prescription the majority did not follow, since the family court statute did not "require" the result it adopted.Pointing to de facto parent rulings regarding lesbian mothers and legislative recognition of same-sex partner benefits in employment, the dissenters argued the state has no overriding policy of hostility toward gay families. The ruling allows for a remedy by the Legislature, which is already considering a same-sex marriage measure. Perhaps the manifest unfairness of this ruling will fuel movement toward that goal.
©GayCityNews 2007

High court, gay marriage and justice | M. Charles Bakst | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

High court, gay marriage and justice M. Charles Bakst Rhode Island news projo.com The Providence Journal

High court, gay marriage and justice
01:00 AM EST on Thursday, December 13, 2007
I decry the state Supreme Court ruling that two Providence women wed in Massachusetts can’t get a Rhode Island divorce.
But while it is an immediate setback to the cause of marriage equality here, it may in the long run prove a help.
The 3-to-2 decision leaves the two women in legal limbo unless one of them wants to move to the Bay State and live there for a year.
I hope the ruling shakes legislators here from their obstinancy or complacency toward legalizing same-sex weddings in Rhode Island. Many who find the topic uncomfortable undoubtedly have rationalized their hands-off attitude by thinking, “What’s the big deal? Those folks can just zip into Massachusetts, marry there, return here, and all will be fine.”
The Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the situation is more complicated than that.
House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, who is gay, is “disappointed” in the decision. He says he’s researching what the General Assembly should do in response. An obvious idea: Pass a law allowing Family Court to grant divorces in such cases.
But it would be better if the legislators went further, squarely confronting the broader issues of equality and dignity and legalized gay marriage here.
The Supreme Court majority said its hands were tied, that legislators, passing the law creating the Family Court in 1961, understood marriage to be between a man and a woman and that Rhode Island laws generally view the topic that way. But the high court dissenters offered their brethren an out: All they had to do was say the two women before them were lawfully wed in Massachusetts and the Family Court can grant a divorce whether the marriage is valid here or not.
The Rev. Eugene Dyszlewski of the Riverside Congregational Church, who signed a brief on behalf of the women, is disheartened that the justices couldn’t see their way clear to granting them relief. Further, “In the text of their ruling they missed their opportunity to make a statement about the civil rights of lesbians and gays. After all, isn’t upholding civil rights the moral obligation of the court? Compassion was trumped by aversion to risk.”
Jenn Steinfeld of Marriage Equality RI says, “This ruling makes it clear that the path to equality goes directly through the Rhode Island General Assembly … I certainly hope that our court’s decision will spur some of our fair-minded, yet more reluctant, legislators to take action.”
Governor Carcieri, who opposes gay marriage, says any move to allow it should be subject to a referendum because it’s “such an important question.”
Steinfeld calls Republican Carcieri’s referendum idea “outrageous.” And she’s right. It also smacks of inconsistency. In 2004, the governor, a casino foe, raged against lawmakers who voiced problems with a casino but said the public should decide. Carcieri said, “We’ve got a representative form of democracy. People are elected to do their homework … and not just toss the ball, if you will, or punt, to the voters.”
Gay marriage is not a complex issue and its arrival would not revolutionize life here. It’s a simple issue of fairness, and suggesting it go to referendum makes it seem like a threat and a bigger deal than it would be.
I believe legalization would carry in a referendum, at least if the debate were even-handed and calm. But more likely a referendum would engender bitterness and divisiveness, and who needs that? Rhode Island has a legislature — dominated, incidentally, by Democrats. The lawmakers should stand up for something.
M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.
mbakst@projo.com

AFP: Swedish Lutheran Church gives green light to gay weddings

AFP: Swedish Lutheran Church gives green light to gay weddings

Swedish Lutheran Church gives green light to gay weddings
6 days ago
STOCKHOLM (AFP) — Sweden's Lutheran Church said Wednesday it was in favour of allowing same-sex couples to wed in church but recommended that the term "marriage" be reserved for heterosexual unions.
The position of the Church, which has 7.2 million members out of a population of 9.1 million, had been solicited by the government as it prepares a bill on a new "gender neutral" marriage law that it hopes to present to parliament early next year.
"Marriage and (same-sex) partnerships are equivalent forms of unions. Therefore the Church of Sweden's central board says yes to the proposal to join the legislation for marriages and partnerships into a single law," the Church said in a statement.
"According to the Church of Sweden's board the word 'marriage' should however only be used for the relationship between a woman and a man," it said.
Sweden has since 1995 allowed gays and lesbians the right to civil unions, granting them the same legal status as married couples.
But gay and lesbian organisations have long been pushing for the last distinction between heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions to be eliminated.
Sweden's current law from 1987 defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The government has proposed that the new law strike any reference to gender.
Archbishop Anders Wejryd said in the statement that "there were different opinions on the board, but there was a large majority who felt that the word marriage should only be used for man/woman relationships."
The Church's position in effect rejects the idea of a gender neutral law, since it wants the term "marriage" to apply only to heterosexual unions. But it opens the door for same-sex couples to wed in church.
While heterosexuals can currently marry in either a civil ceremony or a church ceremony in Sweden, homosexuals are only allowed to register their partnerships in a civil ceremony.
If the new legislation is adopted, Sweden, already a pioneer in giving same-sex couples the right to adopt children, would become the first country in the world to allow gays to marry within a major Church.
The Lutheran Church, which was separated from the state in 2000, has since January 2007 offered gays a religious blessing of their union.

Ireland To Move On Gay Partnership Bill

Ireland To Move On Gay Partnership Bill

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 30, 2007 - 7:30 am ET
(Dublin) The Irish government will bring in civil partnership legislation in March a cabinet minister told an LGBT group on Friday.
Equality Minister Seam Power said he expects the bill to become law later in 2008.
Power, speaking at a symposium on same-sex couple rights, that the government is keen to have the law passed as quickly as possible and he does not foresee any resistance from the opposition.
The cabinet earlier this month approved granting same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, but without the name marriage.
A private members bill was introduced last year by Labor Party justice critic Brendan Howlin and was modeled after Britain's civil partner law.
At the time Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said that the bill equated civil partnerships with marriage and after warning the legislation would be rejected by the Supreme Court Parliament his government voted against the measure.
A clause in the constitution says the government must protect the institution of marriage.
Last year two government committees recommended civil partnerships but without many of the rights of marriage, including the right of couples to adopt children.
Earlier this month Kieran Rose of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network told national broadcaster RTE Radio that he was against any bill that did not recognize full equality, but he said he was a "practical pragmatist" and welcomed any move to protect the rights of people in same-sex relationships.
Recent public opinion polls show that 84 percent are in favor of some recognition of same-sex couples while 53 percent would allow gay couples to marry.
©365Gay.com 2007

CORNWELL CONFIRMS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

CORNWELL CONFIRMS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Best-selling author PATRICIA CORNWELL has opened up about her same-sex marriage to a doctor two years after the couple legally wed in Massachusetts. The thriller writer exchanged vows with Harvard Medical School doctor Staci Gruber in 2005. Cornwell came forward to confirm the union as she embarks on a new personal crusade to highlight gay marriage rights.

John Edwards talks with LGBT Granite Staters

John Edwards talks with LGBT Granite Staters

by Laura Kiritsy
associate editor
Thursday Nov 29, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards chatted up a small crowd of LGBT Granite Staters at the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition’s Concord headquarters on Nov. 25, an unusual move for a top-tier candidate with the state’s all-important primary just around the corner on Jan. 8. Taking a seat on a wooden chair before a group of about 25 people shortly after 5 p.m., Edwards skipped his stump speech and told the group, "I’m glad to talk about anything you want to talk about." After fielding several general questions about his universal healthcare plan, which he said would provide affordable healthcare for all individuals and families, prevent discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and create parity between medical and mental health coverage, among other things, Edwards was asked by a woman in the audience if his plan would enable transgender people to get coverage for hormone treatments. The woman explained that there is a bill currently pending in the New Hampshire legislature that would require health insurers to cover the cost of such treatments, since with few exceptions transgender patients are required to pay for them out of their own pockets."I’ve never been asked [about that], but I’m for it," said Edwards. He later added, "It’s equality."Immediately after that, the discussion turned to Edwards’ position on legal protections for same-sex couples when another woman asked the former North Carolina senator to "explain how it is that you don’t support gay marriage but you believe in parity for all the federal benefits that gays are not currently eligible for?""Yes. Can I explain? Not well," he acknowledged with a laugh, which in turn drew chuckles from the audience. As he has stated before, Edwards said he does not personally support gay marriage though it’s been a source of internal conflict for him. "Secondly, I do believe though that the substantive rights that are available to heterosexual couples should be available to all couples and that’s why I’m for civil unions, and I am for the federal government recognizing and making available every single right" under federal law to same-sex couples. "That’s why I think DOMA was wrong when it was enacted and I think it’s wrong today and I will do everything in my power to get the Defense of Marriage Act eliminated. It’s why I will end ’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ on the first day I’m in office. Because I think those things are overtly discriminatory," said Edwards. When pressed by another audience member to explain what he sees as the distinction between marriage and civil unions, Edwards said again, "Not well," adding, "I’ve been asked this a thousand times. I think that from my perspective, first of all, I’m not opposed to any state recognizing the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. I’m not opposed to that at all. Second, I think that a lot of this is whether a particular faith decides to recognize gay and lesbian couples as being married in their church, in their faith, and I think that those are decisions that ought to be made by them, not by me." Edwards added that despite his personal view, "I don’t think it’s right for me to impose that view on the rest of America. I’ve said publicly many times, nobody made me God and I don’t think I am or claim to be. I don’t think I’ve been imbued with some great wisdom about this. I think this is an issue about which there’s a lot of disagreement but there’s also ... a great deal of consensus." His responsibility, said Edwards, "is to move America forward" on the issue as best he can.
When a man in the audience continued to press the issue, Edwards acknowledged that his position on legal protections for same-sex couples may seem inconsistent. "I’m being as honest as I can," he said of his continued opposition to marriage rights. "I don’t think you’re going to find any consistency, I might add, among the other Democratic presidential candidates ... I think they’re all in the same place."Asked how he planned to build consensus to repeal DOMA and "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," in light of the fact that passing pro-gay legislation through Congress has proven all but impossible, Edwards told Bay Windows, "I think the way to build consensus is to speak to America about this. America’s not for discrimination. America’s for equality and they’re for fairness. And I think if this is presented to Americans the right way they’ll respond in a positive way and I think that’s the way you build consensus."And how would a President Edwards make the case to America? The candidate predicts it won’t be too difficult. "I think that most people will say that gay and lesbian couples should be treated fairly and equally and they should not be discriminated against," said Edwards. "And I think most Americans would be for that and I think that these things we’re talking about accomplish that."As for repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" on his first day in office, Edwards noted that as Commander in Chief, the president can make such decisions. "’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ was put in by a president," he observed, "and the president of the United States can stop it and that’s exactly what I’ll do." Acknowledging that repealing the military’s gay ban may be harder than it sounds, Edwards added with a grin, "Realistically can I do it on the first day? I don’t know. But I’ll do it early."Edwards was the third candidate to visit the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry office. Democratic contender Dennis Kucinich spoke to the group on Nov. 20; Bill Richardson dropped in earlier this year. Mary Hillier of Georges Falls, who has yet to settle on a candidate, said she found Edwards "very personable; obviously, very charismatic." Asked if she was impressed with Edwards’s positions on LGBT issues, she replied, "He seems pretty standard fare for everybody in the Democratic Party."But Freedom to Marry Executive Director Mo Baxley, who has stayed neutral in the race as she has sought to corral all of the candidates to visit her group’s office, said that with little differences between the Democratic candidates on issues like ENDA, hate crimes and civil unions, candidates can distinguish themselves by making the time to speak to New Hampshire’s LGBT community. "I think how you run a campaign is reflective of what your administration will look like," observes Baxley, who is also a New Hampshire state representative. "So it’s kind of reading between the lines - it’s like, are gays and lesbians a priority in New Hampshire that you’re going to find time in your schedule to come and speak to them?" "I think it says something about their campaigns and who really wants to speak to real New Hampshire voters who are New Hampshire citizens, who are leaders in New Hampshire’s gay and lesbian community and who wants to make a slick mailing," said Baxley.