Gay divorce cases complicated by differences in state, federal law - Online Extras - Myrtle Beach Sun News

the gay divorcee may encouter problems. Because of the DOMA in place even getting a divorce leaves gays not having access to the laws for straight couples. Do we need to fight for "divorce equality"



Gay divorce cases complicated by differences in state, federal law - Online Extras - Myrtle Beach Sun News

By Rob Hotakainen - Washington Bureau
1/83/8

BOSTON | Sometimes the joy of same-sex marriage is followed by the pain of divorce, but Peter Zupcofska is there to help.

In Boston, he's become known as "the master of gay divorce." For a $25,000 retainer, he can lead couples through the intricacies of how best to break up. Zupcofska said divorces presented gay couples with a new opportunity "to make things right" when a relationship ended.

"Divorce is a critical part of marriage," he said.

Gay divorces are bringing many new wrinkles to the field of family law, raising questions that are sure to be litigated for years. While no one tracks how many same-sex couples have divorced in Massachusetts, lawyers in the Boston area are competing for cases in the budding cottage industry.

The cases are complicated because of vast differences in state and federal law. In short, federal law trumps state law and can eliminate benefits that a state might want to extend.

Tax issues are a good example.

The Internal Revenue Service Gay doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, which means that spouses can't take advantage of federal tax breaks, including the basic deduction for a dependent.

Gay spouses are eligible for alimony and child support, but such payments can't be deducted from federal taxes. Gay spouses must file federal tax returns as individuals, and only one of them can claim a child as a dependent.

If a couple split and one spouse wants to transfer a house to the other, it can result in a higher federal tax, which wouldn't apply to divorcing heterosexual couples.

Pension issues also get messy.

Because Massachusetts recognizes gay marriages, state workers can get their spouses covered by their pensions. But gay federal employees aren't eligible for Social Security under their partners' plans, as heterosexual couples are. Any other retirement plan governed by federal law doesn't have to recognize a same-sex spouse.

Zupcofska, who's gay and married, doesn't like to leave things to chance: He has a prenuptial agreement, and he advises his clients to do the same.

Zupcofska said the poorer spouse could suffer when a marriage breaks up if the issues aren't ironed out in advance. Without a prenuptial agreement, he said, the primary breadwinner can walk away with more money in his or her pocket, even if it's been a relationship of 20 years or more.

Courts also will have to address the rights of parents and who's responsible for raising children.

For example, if two gays are married and both are recognized as the parents of a child in Massachusetts, that won't necessarily apply in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. Zupcofska said that raised questions regarding who'd be legally liable for child support or what would happen if children inherited money from their grandparents: Can someone be a grandchild in one state and not in another?

Getting divorced also can be tricky.

Two lesbians who married in Massachusetts moved to Rhode Island and tried to divorce there, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court wouldn't allow it because the state defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. One of the women had to move back to Massachusetts to establish residency and qualify for a divorce.

Lisa Cukier, another Boston lawyer who handles divorce cases, said that legal issues stemming from gay divorces were being handled on a case-by-case basis. She predicted that a gay rights group will challenge the federal law against gay marriage at some point and the Supreme Court will be forced to resolve the differences.

However, Joyce Kauffman, a Cambridge lawyer who represents divorcing gays and lesbians, said that most same-sex activists thought that now wasn't the time to try to get a gay marriage case before the nation's highest court. Many activists hope that their chances will improve if Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidency and appoints more liberal justices, who might view gay marriage more favorably.

In the meantime, Cukier said, gays and lesbians who marry must be vigilant to protect their rights.

"When people get married now, they are lulled into the belief that the rights that their straight neighbors have are going to carry over to them, as if marriage somehow magically eliminates the discrimination in the law," Cukier said.

Census Asked to Recognize Gay Marriages

New England Blade and HX New England // News // Census Asked to Recognize Gay Marriages


y Joshua Lysen
August 07, 2008
Gay activists are pushing the U.S. Census Bureau to reconsider its decision to ignore same-sex marriages.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s senior public policy advocate, and others said the recently revealed federal decision to ignore the marriages performed in California and Massachusetts is wrong.
“These couples are married,” Stacy said. “Census data should reflect the reality that these marriages have happened. They’re real. They’re legal.”
Citing their compliance with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), federal officials last month told the San Jose Mercury News that same-sex couples who are legally wed would be reported as “unmarried partners” rather than married spouses.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, berated the Census Bureau this week for “airbrushing same-sex couples out of the picture.”
“It’s bad enough that the federal government denies legal respect and protections to same-sex couples and their kids, even those legally married in their home states,” he said. “Now it is also going to deny their existence.”
The approach also has drawn criticism from demographers who rely on census data.
Gary Gates, a Williams Institute researcher who specializes in gay demographics, said the Defense of Marriage Act gives officials no specific reason to overlook gay marriages during the 2010 census.
“Counting same-sex married couples is hardly providing any federal recognition of them, other than recognizing that’s how they filled out a form,” he said. “They’re not going to get their Social Security benefits.”
Gates said the Census Bureau’s approach resembles how officials treated gay couples during the 2000 count, when no state recognized same-sex marriages.
But he said with the advent of same-sex marriage in California, Massachusetts, and briefly in Iowa, many gay couples can now accurately report themselves as married.
“The problem now is that could be a completely legal response,” Gates said. “The Census Bureau is now potentially changing completely accurate responses to inaccurate ones.”
Stacy chided federal officials this week for planning to change the data.
“That’s not the right thing to do from a moral standpoint,” he said, “and that’s not the right thing to do from a data integrity standpoint.”
Stephen Buckner, a Census Bureau spokesperson, told the Blade in an e-mailed statement that officials have met with Gates “and others who are interested in this issue,” but are holding firm to their decision.
“The Census Bureau’s procedures for tabulating relationship data are guided by and comply with legal requirements of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996,” he wrote, “which requires all federal agencies to recognize only opposite-sex marriages for the purposes of administering federal programs.”
Stacy said HRC would nonetheless keep pushing federal officials to count same-sex marriages.
“We don’t get a sense that this decision is irrevocable or final or the last word,” he said. “And most importantly, we don’t think there is a DOMA issue here. So given all that, we want to find a way to help the census get a count of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California and all throughout the country.”
Gates said he would also continue to pressure the Census Bureau to count same-sex marriages.
“I don’t believe that DOMA necessarily restricts the Census Bureau from coming up with a mechanism to identify these couples,” he said. “That said, if DOMA were repealed, this would be a much easier issue.”
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. But because the Census Bureau is already preparing the 2010 census, it’s unclear what effect, if any, a repeal would have on the count.
“It’s not something the bureau could arbitrarily or casually decide to change on a whim, because our data is used by virtually every federal agency,” Census Bureau branch chief Martin O’Connell told the San Jose Mercury News.
Stacy said HRC is hopeful, though, that time remains for the Census Bureau to change its plans.
“There’s plenty of time to address this issue before any data is reported or collected for the 2010 Census,” he said. “So we’re optimistic that as the Census Bureau reviews this, they will reconsider their initial decision to, quote unquote, correct the data.”
Gates also noted it would behoove the Census Bureau to report its data as impartially as possible to better inform the national debate over same-sex marriage.
“Given that this debate is one of the hottest and most discussed debates in the country, regardless of what side you’re on, you would want a better understanding of the whole issue,” he said. “For instance, if you’re arguing that same-sex couples would fundamentally change the institution of marriage, it would be interesting to know what kind of same-sex couples find marriage appealing.” //

Judge upholds ballot summary for gay-marriage measure - San Jose Mercury News

Judge upholds ballot summary for gay-marriage measure - San Jose Mercury News


Judge upholds ballot summary for gay-marriage measure
By Mike Swift
Mercury News
Article Launched: 08/08/2008 12:01:15 PM PDT


When the state's voters decide Proposition 8 this fall, it appears they will check "yes" or "no" next to a ballot title that reads: "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."
A Superior Court judge this morning rejected a suit filed by Prop. 8 proponents against the ballot title proposed by Attorney General Jerry Brown. Judge Timothy M. Frawley said Brown's language was neither false nor misleading, handing a victory to gay rights supporters who want a clear statement of what a constitutional ban would mean for gay couples who have married in California this year.
Prop. 8 proponents said they will file an appeal today, but time is short: The ballot title, summary and partisan ballot arguments filed by each side are due at the state printer at 5 p.m. Monday.
Prop. 8 proponents had argued that using the word "eliminates" in a ballot title and summary was argumentative, misleading and prejudicial, because it was a negative, active transitive word - grammar that had rarely, if ever, been used in a state ballot title. They preferred "Limit on Marriage," the title on petitions signed by voters that placed Prop. 8 on the November ballot.
Frawley disagreed with those arguments.
"There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization," Frawley ruled in a decision released today.
While it was the Attorney General's office who argued the case in a hearing in Sacramento on Thursday and won the legal victory, same-sex marriage advocates were pleased.
"We believe the title and summary is very accurate," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said following the decision today. "There's no disputing what this measure does. First and foremost, what it does is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California."
Prop. 8 supporters argued that Brown failed in his statutory duty to draft an impartial title and summary for the ballot.
"We believe the Attorney General has attempted to influence voters against this measure," said Andrew Pugno, the lawyer who argued the case for Prop. 8 supporters. "It is our goal to ensure that voters have a fair opportunity to decide this measure for themselves on Election Day."
From Brown's point of view, the question was about who is engaging in politics.
"This lawsuit was more about politics than the law," the Attorney General said in a statement. "The court properly dismissed it."

Paterson Win On Gay Rites Looks Likely - August 8, 2008 - The New York Sun

Love seeing the ADF lose money

Paterson Win On Gay Rites Looks Likely - August 8, 2008 - The New York Sun

Paterson Win On Gay Rites Looks Likely
By ABRAHAM RIESMAN, Special to the Sun | August 8, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/paterson-win-on-gay-rites-looks-likely/83474/
A New York Supreme Court judge seems poised to uphold Governor Paterson's pro-gay marriage policies against an attack from a Christian legal group.

The Alliance Defense Fund has sued Mr. Paterson, claiming the governor overstepped his boundaries when he issued an executive order in May calling for state agencies to ensure recognition of same-sex unions performed legally outside of New York. Currently, such marriages cannot be legally performed in the state.

During oral arguments yesterday, Judge Lucy Billings sharply questioned the lawyer representing the group, Brian Raum.

The most heated exchange came over one of the Alliance Defense Fund's key arguments: that the word "marriage" fundamentally means a bond between a man and a woman.

Mr. Raum argued that, if Mr. Paterson's interpretation of New York law were to stand, "then marriage would mean nothing. It would mean whatever any foreign jurisdiction says."

"Yes, it does mean that in New York," Judge Billings replied. She said that there could be an exception if a certain marriage were deemed "abhorrent" but did not say gay marriages fit that definition.

Judge Billings also implied that she would rule against the Alliance Defense Fund, forcing them to appeal their case. "The petitioners, I'm sure, are headed to a higher court," she said.

Recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages has long been honored under New York common law. In 2006, the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that the state constitution does not explicitly require the recognition of gay marriages but left open the question of whether such marriages could be recognized.

The Alliance Defense Fund argues that Mr. Paterson would need a new law explicitly honoring out-of-state gay marriages in order to issue a directive like the one he made in May.

New York advocates of gay marriage recognition have scored a number of legal victories since 2006. The Alliance Defense Fund has unsuccessfully tried to challenge recognition policies in three cases, and a February appellate court decision ruled that same-sex unions made out of state must be honored in New York, so long as there is no state law explicitly forbidding their recognition.

N.Y. court to weigh Paterson's marriage order -- Queer Lesbian Gay Election News -- Gay.com

Today the ADF will try again to stop the progress of same-sex marriage in NY. They will take their case to the First Department the only deparment that does not have a marriage recognition case pending. Likely result is that they will lose this one as well. These cases are not about allowing same-sex marriage but recognizing legally performed marriages in other juristictions. All the cases in the other three departments the ADF has failed.

N.Y. court to weigh Paterson's marriage order -- Queer Lesbian Gay Election News -- Gay.com

The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund, on behalf of some New York lawmakers, goes to the New York Supreme Court on Thursday to fight Gov. David Paterson's executive order to recognize out-of-state gay unions.

The group is citing the definition of the word "marriage" according to the online edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, claiming that legal recognition of same-sex marriages would "undermine the democratic process and force taxpayers to fund benefits for same-sex couples," the New York Sun reported.

Plaintiffs include New York Assemblymen Daniel Burling, Brian Kolb and Minority Leader James Tedisco and state Sens. Martin Golden and Serphin Maltese.

"The governor should respect New York's marriage laws over the laws of foreign jurisdictions," Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written statement.

"Gov. Paterson is overstepping his authority and the democratic process by issuing a directive at odds with New York public policy on marriage," Raum said.

In May, days after the California Supreme Court declared a marriage ban unconstitutional, Paterson issued an executive order directing state agencies to recognize marriages or civil unions legally officiated elsewhere. Same-sex marriages are not legal in New York, but have been recognized by common law and some courts as legitimate unions, the Sun reported.

The lawsuit was filed June 3, with a July 15 court date, but the trial was postponed. (The Advocate

Assembly's Gay Rites Backers Reap Benefits - August 7, 2008 - The New York Sun

this article is great It shows that legislators get financial support regardless of party from the LGBT community if they vote in support of LGBT issues. This is an excellent tool to take to legislative visits.



Assembly's Gay Rites Backers Reap Benefits - August 7, 2008 - The New York Sun

Assembly's Gay Rites Backers Reap Benefits
Donations Pour In for Republicans
By JACOB GERSHMAN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 7, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/assemblys-gay-rites-backers-reap-benefits/83387/

Assembly Republicans who bucked party leaders and voted to legalize same-sex marriage in New York have been rewarded with an outpouring of donations from gay rights advocates across the nation.


The lawmakers, who before voting for the measure had a relatively low profile in the Assembly and rarely raised money from ZIP codes outside their districts, have benefited from a fund-raising network stretching to at least nine other states.

The money has flowed in at such a rapid pace that these Republicans have seen more than half of their individual contributions in the latest filing cycle come from donors with addresses outside the state.

Their donations also far surpassed political giving from the national gay rights movement to Assembly Democrats who voted for the bill, including Democratic members in upstate districts with conservative leanings.

"It was very shocking to me to watch it come in," a Republican assemblywoman, Teresa Sayward, one of four Republicans who voted in favor of gay marriage, said.

During the most recent six-month campaign-finance filing period that ended July 15, Ms. Sayward, a former dairy farmer who represents a district in the state's North Country, received 30 out-of-state contributions from individuals out of a total of 68 donors.

About two-thirds of the money she raised from individuals came from donors in California, Colorado, North Carolina, Illinois, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

"The night I took the vote in June, I was told I would never be elected again. I'm running unopposed," Ms. Sayward said. "If I were to have a major challenger, that money could have played an important role in being able to get out the message."

Two of her donors were William Lewis and his partner Richard Underwood, who each gave Ms. Sayward $1,000 after they heard her speak about her vote at a gay rights conference in Miami this spring that was organized by the Gill Action Fund, an advocacy group founded by a philanthropist and computer software entrepreneur, Tim Gill.

At the conference, Ms. Sayward, who is Catholic, spoke about how over time she came to accept her son's homosexuality after conducting research into sexual orientation, and came to believe that gay marriage was a civil rights issue.

"She took a huge risk with what she did," Mr. Lewis, a real estate investor from Phoenix, said. "I think people who do the right thing should remain in office."

Another Republican who voted for gay marriage, Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava of Saint Lawrence County, received 26 out-of-state donations out of 34 individuals, making up $15,000 of her total haul of $18,700.

The show of solidarity comes as the campaign to make New York the third state to legalize gay marriage has hit a roadblock in the Republican-led Senate; the Democrat-led Assembly approved same-sex unions in an 85- 61 vote more than a year ago.

Yesterday, the Republican majority leader of the Senate, Dean Skelos, who represents a district on Long Island, reaffirmed his conference's opposition, telling The New York Sun that Republicans are "not supportive" of the measure.

A Republican senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden, said the support received by Assembly Republicans would not influence his conference. "It's a strong belief among many Republicans that it's not the way to go. It's a core belief that we have. We stick with our core beliefs," he said.

"Many of them are a bunch of fossils from a bygone day," a Republican assemblyman of Dutchess County, Joel Miller, who also backed the bill, said of the Senate Republicans. "Constituents have changed. More of us represent a district in which there's a lot more people of diverse views."

Said Mr. Miller: "That's why these donations come in. They want to send a message that you can be a Republican, you can vote for gay marriage, and you can be re-elected."

About 65% of his $23,000 in individual contributions in the latest cycle came from out-of-state supporters.

"I'm very appreciative of it. It makes it easier for other legislators in other states to stand up and do what's right," Mr. Miller said. "This is money I would never have been able to raise."

Mr. Miller, a dentist who is facing a Democratic challenger, said his Republican colleagues last year urged him not to speak out in favor of gay marriage on the Assembly floor and to wait until the Democrats voted — and the bill's passage was a foregone conclusion — before placing his vote.

"I wanted it recognized that my vote counted. I told them I was prepared to leave the conference," Mr. Miller said.

He said in the days after the vote, he received only a handful of e-mail messages from people expressing disapproval. A few Republicans, he said, also refused to collect petition signatures for him.

"Has anyone threatened me? Has anyone called and told me they're not going to vote for me because of this vote? No one has done that," he said.

Gay relationships can be as good as marriage, says the Archbishop of Canterbury | Mail Online

Gay relationships can be as good as marriage, says the Archbishop of Canterbury | Mail Online

By Nick Mcdermott
Last updated at 11:54 AM on 07th August 2008



Controversial: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, with his wife Jane
The Archbishop of Canterbury has equated gay sexual relationships to heterosexual marriage.

Leaked private letters from eight years ago reveal Rowan Williams's innermost thoughts on gay partnerships, which he says can 'reflect the love of God'.

The revelations come just days after the Anglican Communion reached an uneasy truce over the issue, with the row over ordaining gay priests threatening to permanently split the Church.


At the end of the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, Dr Williams called for an Anglican rulebook to keep the Church of England and its warring sister churches together.


In a decision aimed at appeasing orthodox bishops, he recommitted the Church to a more hardline stance saying there should be no more gay bishops until the rules are agreed.


But despite supporting the conservative majority, Dr Williams's view in private is much more closely aligned to the liberal factions of the Anglican church.


In correspondence with an evangelical Christian written while still Archbishop of Wales, Dr Williams claims the Bible does not criticise people who are gay by nature and in a committed relationship, but promiscuous gay sex.


In excerpts of the letters published in The Times, he writes: 'I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.'


Despite being in 2000, two years before taking up the post as head of the Anglican church, Dr Williams writes that his view in the letters are his 'definitive conclusion'.


Considered a liberal before his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams has since faced criticism for backtracking to a more traditionalist stance.


The church, which has 70million worshippers worldwide, has been in deep division since an openly gay priest, Jeffrey John, was nominated as Bishop of Reading in 2003.


Dr Williams forced Canon Jeffrey John to give up the post, but was unable to prevent to stop American Anglicans from endorsing actively homosexual Gene Robinson from being appointed bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire.


In the correspondence with Dr Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist who lives within his former archdiocese in south Wales, Dr Williams distinguishes between his personal views as a theologian, and his position as a church leader for which he must consider the more conservative views of the majority of Anglicans.


He wrote: 'If I'm asked for my views, as a theologian rather than a church leader, I have to be honest and admit that they are as I've said.'

Dr Williams describes in the letters how his opposition to gay relationships softened in 1980 when he as a university teacher he became 'unsettled' by conversations with Christian students who believed the Bible forbade promiscuity not gay sex.


Ordained a priest in 1978, he later became a lecturer at Cambridge and was appointed Dean of Clare College in 1984.


In the correspondence, he says that by the end of the 1980s he had 'definitely come to the conclusion' the Bible was not opposed to faithful relationships between gay people.


One of the academics cited by Dr Williams as pivotal in influencing his more liberal view is ironically Dr Jeffrey John.


He also says he regrets that the issue of homosexuality and the church has become 'very much politicised' and is treated by many as 'the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy'.


In 1989, Dr Williams' hinted at his liberal views on homosexuality in a paper called The Body's Grace, where he argued that the Church's acceptance of contraception meant it recognised the virtues of sex for non-reproductive purposes.


This was interpreted in some quarters to be a tacit approval of gay sex.


Lambeth Palace last night responded to the revelations by quoting a recent interview made Dr Williams where he stated:


'When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.'