Oregon's anti-domestic partner measure fails

Oregon's anti-domestic partner measure fails

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, August 15, 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print E-mail del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit
Facebook Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
Share Comments (4) Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
ArialFont | Size:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples in Oregon remained intact Thursday as a federal appeals court upheld state election officials' findings that a referendum to repeal the partnership law had fallen 96 signatures short of qualifying for the November ballot.

The law, passed last year, made Oregon one of nine states to give legal recognition to same-sex unions. It provides registered partners with the same benefits held by married couples under state law, including property and inheritance rights and hospital visitation. It does not include federal marriage benefits, such as Social Security and immigration rights and joint federal tax filing.

The law is similar to California's domestic partner law. The California partnership law offers same-sex couples an alternative to marriage, a right they won in a May 15 state Supreme Court ruling that could be overturned by a November ballot initiative. Unlike the Oregon partnership law, which applies only to same-sex couples, the California law is also open to opposite-sex couples in which one partner is at least 62.

About 2,500 Oregon couples have signed up since the law took effect in February, said Karynn Fish, spokeswoman for the gay rights group Basic Rights Oregon.

"This means these 2,500 committed couples can finally get on with their lives and not have to worry about whether their rights will be suddenly taken away," she said.

Attorney Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization representing sponsors of the referendum, said the ruling disenfranchised Oregonians whose signatures weren't counted.

"The people didn't thwart this effort, government bureaucracy did," he said.

The law was signed in May 2007 and was due to take effect in January, but a federal judge put it on hold for a month while considering opponents' challenge to state election officials' refusal to place their referendum on the November ballot.

Needing 55,179 valid signatures, sponsors of the referendum turned in 62,000 signatures on petitions to election officials, who followed standard procedures by examining a random sample. After invalidating signatures that didn't match those on registration cards, they concluded that only 55,083 valid signatures had been submitted.

The judge upheld the signature-counting process on Feb. 1 and was affirmed Thursday by a three-judge appeals court panel, which said Oregon took reasonable measures to validate petition signatures.

Sponsors of the referendum argued that election officials should have notified voters whose signatures were rejected and given them a chance to prove their identity. But the court said county registrars are trained in signature verification, allow sponsors of a ballot measure to attend the counting sessions and challenge their decisions, and refer all rejected signatures to a second elections official for added scrutiny.

The ruling is Lemons vs. Bradbury

Florida's gay adoption ban ruled unconstitutional - 09/09/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

Florida's gay adoption ban ruled unconstitutional - 09/09/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
cmarbin@MiamiHerald.com
A Monroe Circuit Court judge has ruled Florida's 31-year-old gay adoption ban ''unconstitutional'' in an order that allows an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt a teenage boy he has raised since 2001.

Declaring the adoption to be in the boy's ''best interest,'' Circuit Judge David J. Audlin Jr. said the Florida law forbidding gay people from adopting children is contrary to the state Constitution because it singles out a group for punishment.

Florida is one of only two states -- the other is Mississippi -- that forbids gay people from adopting.

Circuit judges in Florida have found the statute unconstitutional twice before, both in 1991, but both challenges stalled. A Miami case expected to be heard next month may provide an additional challenge to the law.

At the heart of the Monroe case is a 13-year-old boy with learning disabilities and special needs who has lived in his Key West foster father's two-story home since the Department of Children & Families placed him there in 2001. The boy is identified as John Doe. The father, 52, is not identified.

Audlin appointed the foster father as guardian for the boy in 2006. At a recent hearing, the boy testified he wanted the man to be his ''forever father'' -- like all the other kids had -- ''because I love him,'' the order says.

A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order says.

Miami attorney Alan Mishael, who represents John Doe's guardian, declined to discuss the ruling, since Audlin has not yet published it formally. He said the ruling is less about public policy than the welfare of a former foster child who wants a father of his own.


CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR FULL STORY

Cayman Islands - Cay Compass News Online - Gay marriage ban approved

Well you won't see us give any tourism dollars to the Cayman's. Travel to the Cayman's is off our list and should be for all LGBT supporters.

Cayman Islands - Cay Compass News Online - Gay marriage ban approved

By Brent Fuller, brent@cfp.ky
Sunday 7th September, 2008 Posted: 14:04 CIT (19:04 GMT)


Cayman Islands lawmakers voted in favour of a ban on same sex marriages following a debate Friday in the Legislative Assembly.

The Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2008 still requires the legal formality of a third vote before passing, but lawmakers unanimously approved a key second vote on the measure Friday afternoon. The formal third vote is expected sometime this week.

The ban, accomplished simply by defining marriage as “the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife,” will be added as an amendment to the Marriage Law (2007 Revision) when Governor Stuart Jack signs it. Neither Mr. Jack nor officials with the United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office have given any indication that they will refuse to accept the amendment.

“The people of the Cayman Islands are sending a clear signal that they do not wish to change the definition of marriage,” Leader of Government Business Kurt Tibbetts said. “The purpose (of this amendment) is to confirm and clarify what the Marriage Law has always meant in Caymanian society.”

Mr. Tibbetts said the government did not mean the amendment as an insult or commentary on other countries and other cultures that have legalised same sex marriage. He said there were just certain aspects of the islands heritage and culture Caymanians didn’t wish to change.

Other ruling party lawmakers expected some criticism over the vote.

“I just want to warn my colleagues to gird their loins,” Health Minister Anthony Eden said, adding that when the Cayman Islands Human Rights Committee heard about the amendment “we will be hearing their comments.”

Lawmakers said, despite the controversial nature of the issue, they are confident their actions reflect what the majority of Caymanian voters want.

A Caymanian Compass on–line poll done in July 2007 found about 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Compass poll is non–scientific and does not seek to determine whether respondents are likely voters.

The government did hear some criticism on Friday from opposition party members, not over the amendment itself, but over whether the legislation went far enough.

West Bay MLA Cline Glidden Jr. asked what would happen if a couple that participated in a civil union in Britain moved to the Cayman Islands. Civil unions, or civil partnerships as they are known in the UK, allow same sex couples to receive the same legal benefits and bear the same responsibilities as heterosexual married couples.

“What recognition or respect would be given to those two individuals in the Cayman Islands?” Mr. Glidden asked. “Would they be allowed to adopt children? Would they be allowed to have joint bank accounts? Share pension benefits?

West Bay MLA Rolston Anglin also questioned whether the marriage ban would apply to someone who had a sex change operation and suggested that the law be amended to include phrases “born a man” and “born a woman” in the text.

Attorney General Samuel Bulgin said the government would need more time to look into the ramifications of making further adjustments to the law such as Mr. Anglin and Mr. Glidden had suggested.

“The definition is sufficiently wide enough for the time being,” Mr. Bulgin said.

Mr. Glidden and Sister Islands MLA Julianna O’Connor–Connolly also questioned the government as to whether UK assurances that local legislation in Cayman would define marriage were reliable.

Mr. Tibbetts said the issue would come up in constitutional talks with the UK, which are scheduled to begin toward the end of this month. The government has proposed inserting language in the country’s constitution stating that marriage would be defined by local laws, in order to remove any doubt.

The Leader of Government Business has previously said that he is reluctant to include a ban on civil unions in local legislation because any such attempt would require Cayman to define civil unions and thereby recognise their existence.

“If we were to define civil unions it would mean we would condone them, and accept them and allow them, and I’m saying otherwise,” Mr. Tibbetts has said. (See Caymanian Compass, 8 July, 2007)

Mr. Tibbetts also said he was not concerned about the loss of what is often referred to as “the pink dollar” in tourism, and said the Marriage Law amendment would not have any affect on visitors or residents’ conduct in their private lives.

“Caymanians are well aware that people of a different persuasion come to our shores and they have been welcomed here,” he said. “The basis of this bill is not financial calculations. We don’t set our family values based on how much money they make for us.”

Opposition members agreed.

“This is not intruding on people’s practices in their own homes and behind closed doors,” Mr. Anglin said.

‘The tide is turning’ in same-sex marriage case - Rochester, NY - MPNnow

‘The tide is turning’ in same-sex marriage case - Rochester, NY - MPNnow

By Julie Sherwood, staff writer
Daily Messenger
Sun Sep 07, 2008, 02:04 AM EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Canandaigua, N.Y. -
Both sides in a legal case over same-sex marriage benefits say recent developments in similar cases could prompt a resolution for an Ontario County couple.

David Harmon, an associate professor of history at Finger Lakes Community College, is suing the college for refusing to grant health benefits to his spouse, Kevin Mayer.

Harmon and Mayer were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. Since their marriage four years ago, Harmon has been seeking health benefits for Mayer through his contract with the college. On July 18, Harmon filed a suit in state Supreme Court alleging FLCC’s refusal to grant the benefits “constitutes unlawful gender discrimination based upon sexual orientation.” The lawsuit also seeks “any compensatory damages the court rules appropriate.”

When the lawsuit was pending in June, County Attorney John Park said ambiguities in the state’s law made it unclear whether the college should grant the benefits. This past week, Park said there are still questions. However, “it appears if we extend benefits to heterosexual couples ... we are obligated to extend the same to same-sex couples,” he said.

Park added that there are still “many wrinkles” in the case and the county and college must follow legal procedures in defending itself in the lawsuit. At the same time, “there is an increased awareness” of same-sex marriages “and a public recognition of this issue,” said Park. With cases similar to this one mounting across the state “it will probably lead to a resolution in our jurisdiction,” he said.

Same-sex couples cannot marry in New York and the state’s highest court has said only the Legislature has the authority to change that.

Carl Korn, spokesman for New York United Teachers and Harmon’s legal case, said the state Assembly has approved legislation to legalize same-sex marriage and a vote on the bill is pending in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Gov. David Paterson’s counsel told state agencies in May that a recent state appellate court ruling required them to recognize gay marriages legally performed elsewhere — or risk discrimination claims.

Paterson was responding to a Feb. 1 ruling by an appellate court that backed giving spousal health benefits to a Monroe County couple. Patricia Martinez had sued Monroe Community College after the college refused to provide health insurance to her spouse, Lisa Ann Golden. Martinez and Golden were married in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal.

This past Tuesday, a state Supreme Court judge rejected the first direct legal challenge to the governor’s move to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Christian legal organization that challenged the governor's move, Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, said it would appeal.

State Supreme Court Judge Lucy Billings wrote in her decision issued Tuesday that gay couples’ decision to wed represents “a personal expression of emotional devotion, support and interdependence and a public commitment.”

“With that validity, they expect equal treatment with other married couples.”

Harmon said that with all the developments happening over recognition of same-sex marriage, he sees the county and college finally having to act: “I guess they will have to move now, won't they?”

“The tide is turning,” added Korn, “as more states and more communities are recognizing valid marriages.”

Korn said he is hopeful Harmon’s case can be settled out of court. “We all want to continue discussion,” he said. “We hope for a swift and fair settlement.”

Contact Julie Sherwood at (585) 394-0770, ext. 263, or jsherwood@messengerpostmedia.com

Despite legal battle, few same-sex couples enrolling for state benefits | pressconnects.com | Press & Sun-Bulletin

Despite legal battle, few same-sex couples enrolling for state benefits | pressconnects.com | Press & Sun-Bulletinhttp://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/08/30/six-big-lies-the-freedom-haters-are-spreading-about-proposition-8/

By Joseph Spector
Albany Bureau

ALBANY -- Expensive, taxpayer-funded lawsuits over whether New York should recognize same-sex marriages from other states could linger for years, but so far few gay couples are taking advantage of the state's expanded rights, state records show.

The state Department of Civil Service said it was aware of only 33 same-sex married couples who have signed up for the state's health insurance since it extended the benefits to them on May 1, 2007.

The number is a tiny fraction of the 589,000 families who work for state or local governments and are enrolled in the state's health insurance program.

Gay rights activists said the few enrollees debunks the argument by anti-gay-marriage groups that taxpayers shouldn't be funding benefits for same-sex couples because New York doesn't allow for same-sex marriages.

"The idea that there's some kind of revolutionarily, highly costly, dramatic change going on is really a fallacy," said Susan Sommer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group.

In May 2007, then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer ordered that same-sex couples married out of state would be eligible to enroll in the state's health insurance program. A year later, Gov. David Paterson expanded the benefits for married gay couples to include all 1,324 rights in New York that were previously afforded only to heterosexual couples.

Paterson's directive sparked a lawsuit from the national Alliance Defense Fund and several state lawmakers, who argued Paterson didn't have the right to unilaterally expand benefits for same-sex couples.

This week, a state Supreme Court judge rejected the lawsuit, but the group said they plan to appeal.

Stephen Hayford, a leader of the Coalition to Save Marriage in New York, said that even though the number of enrollees from same-sex couples is small, the state shouldn't be paying for their benefits. The state did not have an estimate on how much the same-sex benefits are costing taxpayers.

"The issue isn't how much is being expended, but that it's inappropriate to spend anything at all," he said, adding that "I think it's curious that the advocates of same-sex marriage are pushing so hard for something that clearly not many same-sex partners are actually taking advantage of."

State records also show that the number of same-sex domestic partners who work in the public sector in New York and receive health-care benefits is also relatively small.

The number of same-sex domestic partners enrolled in the state's health insurance program is 1,267 -- compared to a 3,614 heterosexual domestic partnerships.

Also, the number of same-sex domestic partnerships that receive state health insurance has increased by just 225 since March 2007, according to the Civil Service Department.

Paterson based his decision on a Feb. 1 ruling by an appellate court that backed giving equal benefits to a Monroe County couple, one of whom sued Monroe Community College after the school refused to provide health insurance for her partner, whom she married legally in Canada.

Same-sex marriages are legal in Canada, South Africa, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. They are also legal in Massachusetts and California.

Republican Platform: Same Old Anti-Gay Politics / Queerty

Republican Platform: Same Old Anti-Gay Politics / Queerty

New running mates John McCain and Sarah Palin are trying to present themselves as reformers.

Together, they say, their administration will clean up dirty politics and set America in a new direction. Looking at the Republican party's platform, however, it becomes increasingly clear the Grand Old Party's gay politics are the same stagnant, archaic politics.

While gay Democrats scoffed at the lack of LGBT in their party's platform, we're sure - or, we hope! - that the Republican party's lavender set will have something to say about two very anti-gay stipulations in their peers' platform. First and foremost, there's a little thing called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the discriminatory measure preventing out and proud homos from serving in the military. Based firmly in a tradition of bellicosity, the Republicans declare their support for the troops and pledge to make the armed forces stronger. But, in a brazen display of illogic, the party promises also to keep the gays far from the battlefield. It is, in their words, for service men and women's own protection:

We oppose reinstituting the draft, whether directly or through compulsory national service. We support the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from ground combat units. Military priorities and mission must determine personnel policies. Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.
Why, we wonder, are we incompatible? Because we're all limp-wristed pansies with overactive libidos, or something? Politics like that are not only exclusionary, they're short-sighted and based in stereotypes. In a word, such a stance is unpatriotic.

The anti-gay action doesn't end there. Once again, the Republicans have pledged to protect America's "families" from same-sex marriage, which they must view as a worst threat than terrorism. The party also goes further by coming out against gay adoption and smearing the Democrats for trying to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. From the platform:

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.
The party also pledges that faith-based organizations who are "forced to abandon" their principles for political correctness face "religious discrimination." Anyone who reads this drivel and considers McCain and Palin to be reformers - well, they're just gullible.

With regard to the "Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married" line. Now, we understand Governor Palin's 17-year old daughter shouldn't be derided for being pregnant out of wedlock - she lives in Alaska, what else is she going to do? - but the chasm between the party's pledge and the American reality couldn't be more clear.

Court Backs Paterson Regarding Gay Unions - NYTimes.com

Another consistent Victory!! The ADF loses again.


Court Backs Paterson Regarding Gay Unions - NYTimes.com

Court Backs Paterson Regarding Gay Unions
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson was acting within his powers when he issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state, a court ruled on Tuesday.

The decision, issued by Justice Lucy A. Billings of State Supreme Court in the Bronx, a trial-level court, is the latest in a string of rulings by state courts that have upheld the right of same-sex couples who were married in other jurisdictions to have their marital status recognized in New York, even though gay couples may not marry within the state. A bill to allow gay unions passed the State Assembly last year but has not come up for a vote in the Senate.

The suit was filed in June by lawmakers who opposed the governor’s order and by other opponents of same-sex marriage, who argued that Mr. Paterson had effectively usurped the Legislature’s role by issuing the order. The governor said the order, issued in May, was made to protect the state from litigation by gay couples legally married in places like Canada or Massachusetts.

But in her decision to dismiss the suit, Justice Billings rejected the plaintiffs’ reasoning, finding that Mr. Paterson’s order was consistent with state laws that generally require officials to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions and are silent on whether gay marriages should be excluded from that recognition.

“Furthermore,” she wrote, “when partners manifest the commitment to their relationship and family, by solemnizing that commitment elsewhere, through one of life’s most significant events, and come to New York, whether returning home or setting down roots, to carry on that commitment, nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring them to abandon that solemnized commitment.”

Jim Campbell, a spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund — the Arizona group that represented the plaintiffs — said that it would appeal the ruling. “This decision enshrines the radical notion that the State of New York should forfeit its autonomy to define marriage for itself,” he said.

In a statement, Governor Paterson lauded the ruling as “a wise and fair determination of the policy that holds valid same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.” The decision was also praised by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which joined Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo in defending the executive order.

“There has been a steady drumbeat of courts recognizing longstanding New York law as it applies to same-sex couples,” Susan Sommer, a lawyer at the fund, said in a statement.