A Court Victory for Gay Marriage

A Court Victory for Gay Marriage
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEINStaff Reporter of the Sun
September 12, 2007 updated 3:53 pm EDT

A judge in Albany has ruled that New York State should recognize the marriages of same-sex couples whose ceremonies were performed out of state.The decision, released this morning, comes in one of about half a dozen cases across the state that test whether local or state government must honor gay marriages or civil unions performed in other states or abroad. Judges to take up that question have ruled both ways.
The New York Legislature has not authorized same-sex marriage. And a landmark 2006 decision by the New York Court of Appeals held that the state Constitution does not provide same-sex couples with the right to marriage. But that decision did not say whether New York State should recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The decision today by Judge Thomas McNamara held that state employees who entered into same-sex marriages out of state should be treated as married for the purposes of collecting benefits under the New York State Retirement System. The decision upholds a 2004 policy of the comptroller's office. That policy was challenged by a Scottsdale, Az.-based organization that opposes same-sex marriage, the Alliance Defense Fund, following the 2006 ruling on same-sex marriage in New York State.Judge McNamara ruled that the principal of comity required that New York recognize marriages performed elsewhere even though those marriages cannot be performed in New York. The decision today does not explicitly cover civil unions.

NY Court rules Gay Married Benefits Legal

Court Rules NYS Gay Married Benefits Legal
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: September 11, 2007 - 1:30 pm ET
(Albany, New York) An Albany court has dismissed a challenge to a decision by New York State's Comptroller that treats out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples the same as any other legal marriage in terms of benefits afforded to state employees through the New York State Retirement System.
In 2004 in response to an inquiry by a gay state employee wanting to know if his retirement benefits would cover his family if he went to Canada to legally marry his partner, New York State Comptroller at the time, Alan Hevesi, stated that, “Based on current law, the retirement system will recognize a same-sex Canadian marriage in the same manner as an opposite-sex New York marriage under the principle of comity. That principle has been legal practice pursuant to New York Court of Appeals rulings for many years.”
The New York State Comptroller is the sole trustee of the retirement system - the biggest state plan in the country - which includes 334,000 retirees and 648,000 current employees.
Hevesi’s interpretation of the law matched that of then Attorney General, now Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who also said that, under the state’s current laws, same-sex couples who legally married in other jurisdictions should be treated as any other married couple in New York State.
The Alliance Defend Fund, an Arizona- based organization that regularly fights LGBT issues, filed the suit, citing the July 2006 ruling by the Court of Appeals - the state's highest court - that upheld New York's ban on same-sex marriage. (story)
In dismissing the suit judge Thomas J. McNamara said that case did not apply to the question raised by the ADF since the issue before the Court of Appeals had only addressed whether same-sex couples could marry in the state, not whether marriages performed outside of New York State should be considered legal here.
The policy of the Comptroller to recognize same-sex Canadian marriages in the same manner as opposite-sex New York marriages…is legal and not contrary to law,” McNamara said in his written ruling.
“This ruling is further proof that public and private entities in New York State need to respect the legal out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples in exactly the same way they respect any other marriage,” said Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle.
The issue that Hevesi addressed for the purpose of retirement benefits involved only same-sex marriages from Canada. Following today's ruling by Judge McNamara, Hevesi's successor, Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the retirement system would be recognizing all legal out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples and not just those from Canada.
This will include same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, Spain, Netherlands, South Africa and Belgium.
The ADF has not said if it will appeal today's ruling.

The Canadian Press: Same-sex unions growing at five times that rate of heterosexual ones: census

The Canadian Press: Same-sex unions growing at five times that rate of heterosexual ones: census


Same-sex unions growing at five times that rate of heterosexual ones: census
1 day ago
OTTAWA (CP) — Same-sex unions are growing at five times the rate of opposite-sex ones according to census numbers that also reveal, for the first time, the number of homosexual marriages in Canada.
Some 45,300 couples, both common law and married, reported as same-sex in the 2006 census, up from 34,200. Those numbers represent a 33 per cent surge since 2001, while heterosexual couples grew by just six per cent in the same time period.
The historic Statistics Canada query on same-sex marriage, coming in the wake of Parliament legalizing such unions in 2005, revealed 7,465 homosexual marriages.
That's considerably lower than numbers reported by the now-defunct advocacy group Canadians For Equal Marriage. The group, based on its own research of municipal records, reported last November that 12,438 marriage licences had been granted to same-sex couples since provincial courts began recognizing such unions in 2003.
The census relegated same-sex marriages to a write-in category under the questionnaire's 'other' box - a move that raised the ire of Egale Canada. The national advocacy group responded by urging its membership to list their relationships as husband and wife.
"One box for everybody," is how executive director Helen Kennedy described the group's position.
"People are people and people just want the same things out of life. Your sexual orientation should not matter."
Anne Milan, a senior analyst at Statistics Canada, stands by the accuracy of the census data but concedes the limitations of relying on the answers people provide.
"It's the first time that we've asked same sex marriage so it's really a benchmark number," said Milan, who added it's "difficult to say" what effect Egale's dissent had on the numbers.
"Future census releases will allow us to compare the count and see what's happening."
The fact that the question was being asked at all shows that "people are getting on with their lives, which was fundamentally what the whole debate was about," said Michael Leshner, a lawyer and one of Canada's first legally married gay men.
"It's really a debate that hopefully has run its course... We're just part of the boring middle class now," Leshner said.
According to the census, same-sex couples accounted for 0.6 per cent of all couples in Canada. That falls in line with numbers reported in the United States, New Zealand and Australia. More than half, or 54 per cent, of same-sex married Canadian spouses were men.
Some nine per cent of same-sex couples had children, more commonly in female unions (16 per cent) than male ones (three per cent). Children were present more in same-sex married couples (16 per cent) than common-law ones (eight per cent).
Clarence Lochhead of the Vanier Institute for the Family says the homosexual community's successful fight for marriage reflects the desire to be accepted in the larger community.
"To the extent that you can think of the homosexual community feeling that they're marginalized populations, I don't think it's all that surprising that they would want access to those forms of unions that are recognized in a much wider social community sense," he said.
Ontario became the first province to legally recognize same-sex marriage following a 2003 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Similar decisions followed in British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, and New Brunswick.
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, after the Netherlands and Belgium. Spain and South Africa have since legalized homosexual marriage as well.
"As my spouse Mike Starkel always says, we won. There's nothing they can do, we won," said Leshner.

More briefs filed in marriage case | Rhode Island news | Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

More briefs filed in marriage case Rhode Island news Rhode Island news projo.com The Providence Journal


More briefs filed in marriage case
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, September 12, 2007
By Edward FitzpatrickJournal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Two religious groups and 28 clergy members are telling the state Supreme Court that not all religious leaders in Rhode Island oppose same-sex marriage or the divorce that two Providence women, who married in Massachusetts, are now seeking in Family Court.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and others have filed friend-of-the-court briefs warning of consequences they say would result if the marriage between Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston is recognized for the purpose of granting them a divorce.
Now, local branches of the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Society are joining various clergy members in a legal brief that says, “Bishop Tobin and the Becket Fund do not represent the only faith-based position on this matter. On the contrary, within Rhode Island’s religious communities, many support granting full respect and recognition to the committed relationships of same-sex couples.”
These clergy members had not weighed in during two previous rounds of legal briefs, but in an order issued Monday, the Supreme Court said it would nonetheless accept the brief they filed Aug. 31, which was the deadline for the third round of briefs.
In the order, the Supreme Court rejected requests from those who have written legal briefs and asked to take part in arguments before the high court on Oct. 9.
Courts spokesman Craig N. Berke said it is unusual — but not unheard of — for the court to allow friends of the court to take part in oral arguments. He said the court is still considering a request from Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch’s office to take part in those arguments. The Oct. 9 hearing will include lawyers for Chambers and Ormiston, who agree on the basic issue before the court.
Chambers and Ormiston married in Fall River in May 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Their case marks the first time any of the same-sex couples married in Massachusetts have sought a divorce in another state.
The Supreme Court invited public officials and other interested parties to file friend-of-the court briefs. The court received 16 briefs in the first round, six in the second round, and another five in the third round.
The latest brief was signed by Providence lawyer Susan Perkins and submitted on behalf of 28 clergy members — ranging alphabetically from the Rev. Jonathan Almond, pastor of the Mathewson Street United Methodist Church, to the Rev. William P. Zelazny, district executive for the Unitarian Universalist Association.
The Rev. Eugene T. Dyszlewski, pastor of the Riverside Congregational United Church of Christ and chairman of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality, said the clergy members decided to weigh in after seeing the arguments made in earlier legal briefs.
“Our faith and our belief in religious freedom would not allow us to stay silent in this case,” Mr. Dyszlewski said yesterday. “I am proud to stand with other faith leaders to represent the diversity of religious views on the issue of marriage, and to present the court with a balanced perspective from various faith traditions.”
Rhode Island is the most Catholic state in the country, with “Catholic adherents” making up 51.7 percent of the population, according to the Association of Religion Data Archives.
During the first round, the Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of Providence, filed a brief saying, “The recognition of same-sex relationships as ‘marriages’ would have profound, radical consequences.”
For example, the brief said, “If a court were to rule that either the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Rhode Island requires that organs of government in the state treat same-sex relationships as ‘marriages,’ its decision would significantly inhibit the role of any citizen and particularly the role of any religious leader to speak publicly and cogently for a different view. It would virtually end debate.”
The Becket Fund, an interfaith public-interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., filed a brief saying religious organizations could face civil suits if they refuse to treat legally married same-sex couples “as morally equivalent to traditionally married men and women.”
For example, religious organizations could soon face situations in which an employee legally marries someone of the same gender, the Becket Fund said. “These employers may well terminate their relationship with employees out of a desire to stay faithful to their institution’s moral and religious teachings, and to make clear that the institution does not condone certain behavior,” the brief said. “Terminated persons, in turn, might sue under employment anti-discrimination statutes, using a variety of theories such as discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, or marital status.”
In their brief, the 28 clergy members and two religious groups said no Supreme Court ruling can force any religious groups or individuals to change their views on same-sex marriages. And they disputed the idea that “recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples will somehow infringe [on] the religious freedom of faith communities and institutions.”
“Such suggestions amount to bald fear mongering in light of existing legal principles, at both constitutional and statutory levels, designed to address any potential conflicts between civil laws and a religious community’s practices,” the brief said. “The lawsuits and restrictions about which these [friends of the court] warn have, in most instances, nothing to do with marriage regulation and more to do with long-standing objections to the legal protections extended to gay and lesbian citizens in society at large.”
efitzpat@projo.com

Israeli Justice Minister Backs Down on Definition of Marriage

Israeli Justice Minister Backs Down On Definition Of Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: September 10, 2007 - 7:00 pm ET

(Jerusalem) Despite intense pressure from ultra-Orthodox religious parties Israel's Justice Minister has backed down on a plan to define common-law marriage as between "a man and a woman" in a new bill on inheritance rights.

Earlier this month it was disclosed that Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann had revised the draft bill to specifically exclude gay and lesbian couples. (story)

The original draft was gender neutral and approved by the cabinet. Friedman changed it following a meeting with the ultra-Orthodox Shas party.

Marriage under Israeli law is the monopoly of rabbis. There is no civil marriage in Israel. But cohabitating opposite-sex couples are regarded as in a common-law marriage with many of the rights of married couples.

Friedman's revision ignored the recommendations of a government commission that recommended partners in same-sex relationships have the same rights to inheritance as married couples when one partner dies without a will.

The change in the wording of the bill angered LGBT civil rights groups fighting for recognition in Israel.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel warned that the revision would strip away rights gay and lesbian couples had already won.

Friedmann now has told the Association that he "would not advance the proposed Inheritance Law, if the matter would harm the property rights of same-sex couples."

He said will now try to work out a compromise with the Shas party. In the meantime, other provisions of the bill will proceed he said.

Same-sex couples have been slowly gaining recognition in Israel. In 2005 Israel's Family Court for the first time recognized a same-sex couple as the joint parents of their children. (story)

Last November the Supreme Court ordered the government to register the marriages of same-sex couples married abroad in countries that recognize such unions. (story)

The high court ruling only directs the government to record the marriages for the purpose of collecting statistics. It does not require that the marriage receive official recognition or that the couples receive any of the rights of marriage.

Ultra-Orthodox groups have been gaining strength in Israel.

For the past two years members of an extreme Orthodox sect, the haredi, have rioted in advance of gay pride celebrations in Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, a poll released in July found that despite a vocal opposition to gays by orthodox religious groups the majority of Israeli's believe same-sex couples should have rights similar to those of married couples.

©365Gay.com 2007

Keeping Track of Same Sex Marriage

Keeping Track of Same Sex Marriage
by Patrick Connors / September 10th, 2007

Here is the latest development in California regarding same sex marriage: “For the second time in three years, the Legislature has approved a bill to give same-sex couples the right to marry in California…” according to the San Francisco Chronicle (“Legislature OKs same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto” by Haley Davies, Saturday, September 8, 2007).

I’d like to ask a question that pertains to the campaign platforms of the Democratic party candidates for President. Is this development in CA an example of the states taking care of the issue of same sex marriage? The California State Legislature is made up of two political bodies: the assembly and the senate. Both of these bodies are comprised of politicians that were elected by the citizens of California. Both of these bodies passed a bill — for the second time — that gives same sex couples the right to marriage. This legislation would undo the legislation passed in 2000 (Prop 22) that defined marriage in a way that prohibits LGBT (lesbian-gay-bi-transgender) people from being married.

Does the action of the legislature (elected by the people) represent the will of the voters or does Proposition 22 represent the will of the voters?

I think this situation is more complicated than candidates for president of the US are acknowledging. Frankly, it gets even worse the more I think about it.

Do we really want Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the bill? Of course we do. I think. What would that do to the SSM case that is before the state Supreme Court? I guess it would make it unnecessary because the people suing for marriage will no longer have a complaint.

Of course, if the governor signed the bill, the two fanatical Christian organizations that are gathering signatures to amend the state constitution against same sex marriage (and possibly all forms of relationship recognition) would be further motivated to their cause. They could really break out the fire and brimstone to push for an amendment if the governor signed. If they succeed, then the law won’t matter and the dropped lawsuits will matter even less (does that makes sense?).

But then again, even if Schwarzenegger doesn’t sign the bill the Zealots for Christ will still push to amend the constitution. They won’t rest until their religious beliefs are imposed on all Californians. So, if the bill is vetoed, the state Supreme Court will still have to decide the case and the constitution could still be amended.

Are you keeping up with me?

Now, in New York State the court said that the Legislature must act if it chooses to — it is not up to the court — to create SSM or something else, since NY State has nothing at all in place to accommodate same sex couples (even though there is nothing on the books that specifically denies it either). In New Jersey, the court forced the Legislature to act within a certain time frame. They passed Civil Union legislation and Governor signed it into law.

Listen up, Arnold: the Governor of New Jersey signed the bill. The Governor of New York submitted same sex marriage legislation to the Legislature himself and is waiting to sign it. What is your story? Oh, that’s right… you are waiting for the court case to be heard to determine whether or not LGBT Californians are due full citizenship.

This is what kills me. Isn’t anyone bothered by this shell game? I know there are extremely polarized opinions about marriage equality. I also know there is enormous ambivalence about it too — among heteros as well as homos. Don’t any of the ambivalent people feel a pang of discomfort about this process?

The people opposed to equality are engaged in rigorous legal acrobatics and will contort their agenda as much as necessary to achieve their goal. What is their goal? They seek to marginalize a minority group that they despise. They want to circumvent all methods of redress available to LGBT citizens. They do not want to let go of their privileged status and they will work feverishly to deny equality to people for whom they have contempt.

The politicians that dodge the issue or offer the platitude “let the states decide” are accomplices to the bigotry… so are the people that don’t push political leaders to take a principled stand in support of equality and fairness.

If it’s ok for the states to decide this issue, then tell me: Was this issue resolved by the voters of California in 2000, or was it decided by the voters of California when they elected and re-elected their state representatives?

Also, please tell me why it is acceptable to jerk around a minority group that is not guilty of any crime and only seeks to have the same consideration of citizenship that an imprisoned serial killer has? Charles Manson can get married without having to put up with religious fanaticism, political opportunism or feckless friends getting in his way.

Why is anyone ambivalent about the gratuitous and desperate attempts that are being made to find a way to legalize bigotry?

Corzine: Jersery Gay Marriage Inevitable After 2008

09/09/2007
Corzine: Jersey Gay Marriage Inevitable - After 2008
By:PAUL SCHINDLER


New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine meets with gay journalists on September 9 in Newark.
In a one-hour session with gay journalists, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine made clear that he sees full marriage equality for same-sex couples as inevitable in the Garden State, but also believes that, from a strategic political perspective, achieving that milestone is best left to a time after the 2008 presidential election.

"I think we're in the process of evolution," he said at the September 9 event. "I don't know whether it's three years or five years, but in some time frame in the not so distant future I suspect that New Jersey will embrace the moniker of gay marriage or same-sex marriage."

The issue was the key focus of Corzine's informal gathering with roughly two-dozen members of the New York chapter of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark.

But the governor also fielded questions about the state's hate crimes statute, Democratic presidential politics, and the resignation of Idaho GOP Senator Larry Craig.

The same-sex marriage issue has been front and center in New Jersey since last fall when the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Legislature must extend all the rights and benefits available to married spouses under state law to same-sex couples.

Four of the seven justices, however, ruled that the requirement could be achieved by enacting either full marriage equality or a separate, parallel institution for gay and lesbian couples.

At Corzine's urging, the Legislature acted quickly to adopt a civil unions law, which the governor Sunday characterized as the strongest partnership recognition statute in the nation "short of" same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

While emphasizing the strength of that law and his desire to have "a little more time" to judge how it's working, the governor was unambiguous in saying he would sign a marriage equality law if it came to his desk.

But adding, "It won't be on my agenda" for next year, he emphasized that 2008 is not the year to have that debate, in New Jersey or elsewhere.

"I don't think I'd like to see this debated in a presidential election year," Corzine said. "It's an incitement to people who will make policies on a whole broad range of issues that will keep the status quo."

Telling the group, " I hope you know I'm on our side," the governor talked about same-sex marriage equality in terms of it being a goal on which he, the journalists, and, in some cases, their readers are in agreement, even if the roadmap needed to be hashed out.

"I think we can move very quickly here, but I think we ought to do it in a way, by the way, that doesn't cause setbacks everywhere else in the country," Corzine said, "that doesn't make it a tool for people who I believe start unjust wars or try to take away children's health insurance or aren't committed to enforcing hate crimes laws and all kinds of other things."

In an introductory chat with perhaps half a dozen of the crowd as he arrived, the governor twice mentioned the 3,500-plus American military service members who have died in Iraq, to underscore the critical need to block the Republican Party from seizing on issues such as same-sex marriage to hold onto the White House and/or regain Congress next year.

Asked by one of the journalists why New Jersey had to wait until the rest of the country was comfortable with same-sex marriage to move, Corzine challenged the assumption of the question, saying that the presidential election year provided opportunities to debate the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military policy.

"I don't want the debate in one state lead us away," he said, from the broader national issues he believes can constructively be discussed during a presidential election.

Significantly, Corzine said 2009, when he must next face New Jersey voters, could be a time to look at advancing the same-sex marriage question.

"It would be a perfectly appropriate thing to ask about," he said, should he stand for re-election that year.

Informed of that statement, Steven Goldstein, the chair of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's LGBT advocacy group that has been pressing hard to make marriage equality a reality, said, "We of course will not have anyone dictate when we will push for a discussion about our families being denied their rights, but if that's the way he feels, we should sit down and meet to draw up a timetable."

To date, Goldstein said, discussions with the governor about moving beyond the civil union law toward full marriage equality have only been "informal."

He also speculated as to whether Corzine had been asked by New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose presidential bid he supports, to keep the same-sex marriage question off the table next year.

In his remarks, Corzine lauded the efforts made by Goldstein and Garden State Equality on the marriage issue, but said his administration had not received the volume of complaints about the workings of the civil union law that the group says it has seen.

According to GSE, of the 1,514 New Jersey couples who have registered civil unions, 278 have encountered problems in having their partnerships recognized as the law requires. Many of them say their employers have refused to accord them the same partner benefits given to the spouses of employees who are married.

Goldstein said Garden State Equality fields most of the complaints since few people are aware that the civil unions law established a state commission to monitor compliance.

Corzine said that the only such problems that cannot be addressed under the state law relate to those employee benefit programs governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which he estimated involves about one-quarter of all New Jersey employers. Those businesses could also refuse to cover same-sex spouses, and New Jersey would have no recourse, he said.

Goldstein argued, however, that problems with employers claiming ERISA exemption in Massachusetts have not arisen.

The governor talked about how his office successfully argued to UPS that ERISA did not provide justification for its initial refusal to give civil union partners of its employees spousal benefits.

And, Corzine pledged to continue looking into the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group, to open its beachfront pavilion to same-sex couples looking to hold civil union ceremonies there, despite the fact that the organization receives a special state tax exemption on the property contingent on opening it up for public recreation.

Asked by one of the journalists his thoughts on remedying weaknesses in the state's hate crimes law, the governor conceded he was not familiar with the particular issues involved but pledged to look into the matter.

On the question of whom his preferred presidential candidate, Clinton, should select as a running mate, Corzine suggested the person best able to help the ticket win made the most sense, singling out Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, currently a presidential hopeful, as possible choices.

Asked whether he thought Larry Craig would have resigned if Idaho had a Democratic governor who would appoint his successor, Corzine said the question was an easy one. He noted that no Republican has suggested that David Vitter, snared in a prostitution scandal, but a GOP senator from Louisiana, which has a Democratic governor, give up his seat.

"The Vitter-Craig hypocrisy is pretty clear," the governor said.

Visit Paul Schindler's new blog, SCHINDLER CITY, at http://paulschindler.blogspot.com .